DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is being maintained. The specification and drawing rejection is being maintained. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for lacking antecedent basis are maintained. The prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been maintained and another rejection has been applied in this Action.
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. Therefore, the multitude of side connectors each configured to receive a pair of colinear end segments (i.e., the drawings do not show each one of the side connectors receiving a pair of colinear end segments) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
a plurality of corner connector (i.e., fittings; Para. [0020])
a pair of end segments (i.e., connecting bars; Para. [0020])
an end plane (i.e., triangular end face; Para. [0020])
an edge crossbar (i.e., edge bar; Para. [0020])
a pair of colinear end segments (i.e., connecting bars; Para. [0020])
a face crossbar (i.e., cross bars; Para. [0020])
a plurality of crossbars and end segments (i.e., the cross bars/edge bars and connecting bars; Para. [0020])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “a multitude of side connectors each configured to receive a pair of colinear end segments” is rejected under 112(a) for failing to describe the subject matter of each side connector configured to receive a pair of colinear end segments. The claim limitation necessitates each of the side connectors being capable of receiving a pair of colinear end segments which is not disclosed within the instant specification. However, the disclosure supports the subject matter of each side connector receiving a single end segment as disclosed in Para. [0020]. Therefore, the instant specification does not contain the subject matter to support the claim limitation as recited and the claim limitation is rejected under 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pair of colinear end segments” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a pair of colinear end segments” are the same, or separate, in structure to the “a pair of end segments” of line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of cross bars and end segments” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a plurality of cross bars” are the same, or separate, in structure to “an edge crossbar” of line 3 or “a face crossbar” of line 6. Additionally, the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a plurality of end segments” are the same, or separate, in structure to “a pair of colinear end segments” of line 5 or “a pair of end segments” of line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “triangular end faces and rectangular side faces” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “ triangular end faces” or the “rectangular side faces” are the same, or separate, in structure to “end plane” of line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the perpendicular connectors” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the perpendicular connectors” are the same, or separate, in structure to “plurality of corner connectors” of line 2.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aksins (US Design Patent No. 222,487; FD: 06/04/1970) in view of Mathou (US Patent No. 4,433,447; FD: 05/03/1982).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
670
966
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Aksins discloses a climbing structure kit (Assembly 100; Figure 1; i.e., the shape of the immediate embodiment is a rectangular prism, however, the specification details other polyhedrons and shapes that can be formed as described within Col. 10 Lines 58-62 “In an embodiment not shown, the assembly comprises an inflatable framed enclosure member. In one embodiment, the framed enclosure is cube-shaped, while in other embodiments it is of rectangular prism, sphere, or other geometric shape.”) comprising: a plurality of corner connectors (Connecting member 114; Figure 1; i.e., the connecting members 114 are joined at three sides such as the corner connectors of the instant specification and can be modified to be different shapes as seen by the corner connectors 116 seen in Figure 7; Col. 2 Lines 56-60) configured to receive a pair of end segments (Two of the frame segments 104H and 104E; Figure 2) oriented at an acute angle to each other (i.e., the frame segments are able to be in an acute angle as described within Col. 3 Lines 53-56 “In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2, the frame member supports 104 extend along axis 120, which is orthogonal to axis 122, which is orthogonal to axis 124. In another embodiment, the independent axes are not orthogonal and are not at equal angles.”) and defining an end plane and an edge crossbar (Frame member 104I; Figure 2) perpendicular to the end plane (i.e., the end plane is formed at each of the two frame members 104 and the edge crossbar, in as much as Applicant has claimed, is being interpreted by the Office to be the third frame member supports 104I seen in Figure 2); a multitude of side connectors (Tensile member connectors 132; Figures 3 and 4; i.e., the tensile member connectors are positioned on the end segments 104; Col. 4 Lines 29-33 “The tensile members are, in one embodiment, removably attached to the frame member supports by tensile member connectors 132 which may be made of any suitable material such as, for example, plastic, nylon, velcro, hooks, snaps or the like.”) each configured to receive a pair of colinear end segments (i.e., the tensile member connectors are positioned on the end segments 104); a face crossbar (Tensile members 130; Figure; i.e., each of the tensile members 130 are members that connect between the connectors 132 and are modular which allows the tensile members 130 form a symmetrical climbing structure by having the face crossbars/tensile members 130 that are perpendicular/non-acutely extending from parallel end segments 104; Col. 4 Lines 29-33) placed non-acutely to the end segments, wherein the plurality of corner connectors are welded (Col. 7 Lines 61-66 “In other embodiments, each end of a frame member support is removably connected to an opening of a connecting member 116 by fastening means such as screws, nuts, bolts, studs, welds, nails, rivets, roll pins, push-button springs, or any other suitable fastening means, or without fastening means such as by friction fit.”).
Aksins does not distinctly disclose a plurality of crossbars and end segments interconnecting the perpendicular connectors and side connectors in a body having triangular end faces and rectangular side faces.
PNG
media_image3.png
404
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mathou teaches an analogous play pen structure (See Figure 1 above; i.e., it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this instance, the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises multiple members connected to form the shape of a climbing structure such as a ladder and can be placed sideways to resemble the climbing structure as seen in Figure 1 above; Additionally, the body of the claims does not positively recite the need for a climbing structure; Col. 1 Lines 65-68 “The play pen according to the invention illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a peripheric body comprising, for each face, a pair of upper 1 and lower 2 side-members, mutually parallel, which are connected by small bars 3, thereby giving the overall structure the shape of a ladder.“) a plurality of crossbars and end segments interconnecting the perpendicular connectors and side connectors in a body having triangular end faces and rectangular side faces (i.e., the shape of the device Spencer forms a body with triangular end faces and rectangular side faces as seen in Figure 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Aksins to be specifically a triangular prism as taught by Mathou because of its structural stability and for its developmental benefits for children, such as improved gross motor skills, balance, coordination, and problem-solving. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathou (US Patent No. 4,433,447; FD: 05/03/1982) in view of Spencer (US Patent No. 8,079,915; FD: 07/21/2009).
PNG
media_image4.png
633
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
228
246
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Mathou discloses an analogous play pen structure (See Figure 1 above; i.e., it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this instance, the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises multiple members connected to form the shape of a climbing structure such as a ladder and can be placed sideways to resemble the climbing structure as seen in Figure 1 above; Additionally, the body of the claims does not positively recite the need for a climbing structure; Col. 1 Lines 65-68 “The play pen according to the invention illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a peripheric body comprising, for each face, a pair of upper 1 and lower 2 side-members, mutually parallel, which are connected by small bars 3, thereby giving the overall structure the shape of a ladder.“) comprising: a plurality of corner connectors (Extended portions 8 and screw and washer assembly 9; Figures 1 and 2) each configured to receive a pair of end segments (Segments 6 within each of the upper and lower side members 1 and 2; Figure 1; i.e., the extended portions 8 receive each of the segments 6 as seen in Figure 2) oriented at an acute angle to each other (i.e., the corner connectors/extended portions 8 each form an acute angle as the shape of the triangle is in the form of an equilateral triangle and each of the lengths of the core 6 of the members 1 and 2 have the same length; Col. 2 lines 6-20) and defining an end plane (i.e., the end plane is the triangular plane annotated in Figure 1 above) and an edge crossbar (Post 4; Figure 1) perpendicular to the end plane (i.e., the edge cross bar can be any of the posts 4); a multitude of side connectors (See annotated Figure 1 above; in as much as Applicant has claimed, each of the annotated the segment side members 1 and 2 comprising of the outer covering 7 in Figure 1 are side connectors that connect the colinear end segments) each configured to receive a pair of colinear end segments (See annotated Figure 1 above; i.e., in as much as Applicant has claimed, the annotated small bars 3 are colinear segments that are received within each of the segment side members 1 and 2 comprising of the outer covering 7); a face crossbar (One of the small bars 3; Annotated in Figure 1 above) placed non-acutely to the end segments (i.e., the one annotated small bar 3 is placed perpendicular/non acutely to the end segments/segments 6); and a plurality of crossbars and end segments interconnecting the perpendicular connectors and side connectors in a body having triangular end faces and rectangular side faces (i.e., the cross bars and end segments of Mathou form two equilateral triangles on both sides with one side being annotated in Figure 1 above and rectangular side faces to form a triangular prism body structure).
Mathou does not disclose the plurality of corner connectors are welded.
Spencer teaches an analogous tubular playground equipment in the art of children play equipment comprising a plurality of corner connectors (Gussets 112, 116, and 188; Figure 1) which may be welded (i.e., each component including the gusset corner connectors within the playground structure can be welded to form a solid structure; Col. 12 Lines 50-52; additionally, welding is a common method of connecting structure that is used within connectors art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extended portions being secured by screw and washer assemblies of Mathou to be secured by way of welding as taught by Spencer in order to provide a more durable and rigid structure for the play pen.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korte (US Design Patent No. 222,487; FD: 06/04/1970) in view of Spencer (US Patent No. 8,079,915; FD: 07/21/2009).
PNG
media_image6.png
1016
874
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Korte discloses a climbing structure kit (See Figure 1 above) comprising: a plurality of corner connectors (i.e., the corner connectors are the tubular three way tubular members annotated in Figure 1 above) each configured to receive a pair of end segments (i.e., the end segments are the tubular arm members annotated in Figure 1 above) oriented at an acute angle to each other (i.e., the top plane forms an equilateral triangle with acute angles between each of the plurality of corner connectors) and defining an end plane (i.e., the end plane is the annotated triangle at the top half of the climbing structure) and an edge crossbar perpendicular to the end plane (i.e., the edge crossbar is annotated in Figure 1 above, the edge crossbar is perpendicular to the annotated triangle end plane at the top of the climbing structure); a multitude of side connectors (i.e., the side connectors are annotated in Figure 1 above, in as much as Applicant has claimed, the side connector members annotated above are considered to be side connectors as the members connect two members together) each configured to receive a pair of colinear end segments (i.e., in as much as Applicant has claimed, the pair of colinear end segments annotated in Figure 1 above are two parallel members that extend from the end plane that each of the side connectors are receiving one of the two colinear end segments as seen in Figure 1 above); a face crossbar (i.e., the face crossbar annotated in Figure 1 above is perpendicular to one of the end segments) placed non-acutely to the end segments; and a plurality of crossbars and end segments interconnecting the perpendicular connectors and side connectors in a body having triangular end faces and rectangular side faces (i.e., the cross bars and end segments annotated in Figure 1 above are interconnected by the corner connectors and side connectors to form a top and bottom triangular face and a multiple rectangular side faces as annotated in Figure 1 above).
Korte does not disclose the plurality of corner connectors are welded.
Spencer teaches an analogous playground equipment having tubular members comprising a plurality of corner connectors (Gussets 112, 116, and 188; Figure 1) which may be welded (i.e., each component including the gusset corner connectors within the playground structure can be welded to form a solid structure; Col. 12 Lines 50-52; additionally, welding is a common method of connecting structure that is used within connectors art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extended portions being secured by screw and washer assemblies of Korte to be secured by way of welding as taught by Spencer in order to provide a more durable and rigid structure for the play pen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Office notes that the amended limitations “multitude”, “placed non-acutely”, and “perpendicular” do not further narrow the claims but instead introduce synonymous terms and a 112(b) issue. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the specification being objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter are not persuasive. Refer to the underlined portions of MPEP § 608.01(o) “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies… Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted… This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification”. In this case, the structures claimed do not follow the terminology present within the specification causing confusion on which term within the specification the Applicant is specifically trying to claim. The terms claimed can be construed to be multiple different structures/parts described within the specification since the structures are fairly similar. Therefore, the terms are objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. An amendment that claims the structures to the nomenclature of the specification would resolve the objection issue. The Examiner has suggested possible terms from within the specification that the claimed structures could be representing in the Specification section of the Office Action as seen above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objection and the 112(a) rejection have not been fully addressed and are not persuasive. The instant specification does not support a plurality of side connectors that each receive a pair of colinear end segments. The drawings and the written description support each side connector (i.e., fittings with semi cylindrical channels; Para. [0020]) receiving a single end segment (i.e., connecting bar; Para. [0020]), not a pair of end segments. Applicant states the limitations are clear as the drawings inherently show the claimed features. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(b) rejections of the previous Non-Final Action have been considered but are not persuasive. The limitations as claimed are unclear as the claimed structures can be interpreted to be other claimed structures within the independent claim as described within the 112(b0 section of this Office Action. Applicant is advised to change the limitations to the nomenclature used within the specification to properly denote which structure is being claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections are not persuasive. The Examiner argues that Applicant’s argument that “the cited references do not show the claimed combination of elements in its entirety and is not necessarily disclosed as an operable system.” is not persuasive and do not substantively address the rejections made in the previous Final Action. The prior art of record, specifically Mathou (US Patent 4,433,447) and Korte (US Patent No. 222,487), contain structures with multiple parts that form an operable climbing structure that a user could use for climbing exercises. The prior art of record contains operable structures with elements that reject the claims as broadly claimed, please see the 892 Notice of References Cited form of the previous Non-Final Action for additional pertinent art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited for additional pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M KOBYLARZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/ANDREW M KOBYLARZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3784