DETAILED 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 support structure being short of contact with the first plate (i.e. the sidewalls being the only means of interconnection) of claims 11 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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.
Claims 11, 13, 14, and 16-19 are 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. Claim 11 now claims “wherein the at least four walls are the sole means of interconnecting the first plate to the second claim”. Claim 19 now claims “wherein the support structure is interconnected to the first plate only via the at least one sidewall”. This language is not supported by the original written specification (i.e. there is no “means for interconnected” or “interconnected” in the specification, also noting “means” raises potential 112(b) issues as the “means” for interconnection. i.e. what is acceptable structures for interconnection, are not disclosed in the specification). The amended claim language can also be considered a negative limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(i); noting “silence will not generally suffice to support a negative limitation”, as a positive limitation would be to claim that the support structure extends less than a height of the cavity). Furthermore, applicant gives no specific citation to the specification for support for the amended claim limitations (see Remarks, page 6, applicant generally stating “Claims 11, 12 [sic], 14, 18, and 19 have been amended, the support for which can be found in the Specification and Drawings as originally filed”). However, assuming arguendo that there is support for the limitation (i.e. assuming arguendo that it comes solely from the drawings), the claim language needs to be added to the specification for proper antecedent basis (i.e. there is a specification objection under MPEP 608.01(o)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 13, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goss III (herein “Goss”; US Pat. No. 3,220,141).
Regarding claim 11, Goss discloses a toy tile (Fig. 9 below) comprising: a first plate and a second plate (Fig. 5 below), each of the first plate and the second plate having an outer surface, an inner surface, and an edge joining the inner surface of the first plate to the inner surface of the second plate (Fig. 5 below; noting this is inherent); at least one coupling stud extending outwardly from the outer surface of the first plate (Figs. 5 and 9 below); at least four side walls extending between the edge of the first plate and the second plate to define an enclosed cavity (Figs. 9 and 5; Fig. 9 indicating four side walls, and Fig. 5 showing that the there is an “enclosed cavity), wherein each of the at least four side walls and the outer surface of the second plate has an absence of another coupling stud (Figs. 8 and 9 below); and a support structure disposed within the cavity (Fig. 5 below), interposed between the inner surfaces of each of the first and second plates (Fig. 5 below) and operative to reduce the flexing of the first plate or the second plate of the tile (Fig. 5 below; noting this if functional language that is possible given the structure), wherein the at least four side walls are the sole means of connecting (Fig. 5 below; noting connection only by the sides walls, see also Figs. 8 and 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
1077
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Goss discloses that the four side walls are integrated with at least one first edge of the first plate (Fig. 5 above; noting broadly speaking, they are “integrated” because all four walls are structurally connected to the first edge via the wall structure).
Regarding claim 14, Goss discloses that the support structure is integrated into a central portion of the second plate and configured to extend from the enclosed cavity to the inner surface of the first plate (Fig. 5 above; noting applicant, by way of the current and specific amendments, is making it perfectly clear that the support structure does not need to touch the inner surface of the first plate, as such, the support structure only needs to extend some distance from the second plate toward the inner surface of the first plate).
Regarding claim 16, Goss discloses that the support structure is defined by a shape selected from a group consisting of a line, stadium, parallelogram, triangle, circle, or combinations thereof (see Fig. 5 above; noting a parallelogram).
Regarding claim 17, Goss discloses that the at least one coupling stud comprises a coupling wall defining a hollow (Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 18, Goss discloses that the hollow extends from a distal surface of the at least one coupling stud towards the outer surface of the first plate (Fig. 4 above; noting without importing any limitations from the specification into the claims, the prior art broadly reads on this claim).
Regarding claim 19, Goss discloses an interlocking toy tile (Fig. 9 above) comprising: a first plate and a second plate (Fig. 5 below), each having at least one edge, an outer surface, an inner surface (Figs 4, 5, 8, and 9 above, noting this is inherent), the first and second plates configured parallel to and oppositely facing one another (Figs. 4 and 5 above), the outer surface of the second plate comprising a means for coupling selected from a group consisting of a recess, at least another coupling stud, or combinations thereof (Figs. 8 and 9 above, noting recess(es)), at least one coupling stud extending outwardly from the outer surface of the first plate (Figs. 4 and 5; noting as per Fig. 9, there are three); at least one side wall extending between and joining the oppositely facing first and second plates to one another to define an enclosed cavity (Fig. 5), wherein the at least one side wall has an entirely flat configuration (Figs. 5 and 9; noting all the outside portions of side walls are entirely flat); and a support structure integrated into a central portion of the second plate and configured to extend into the enclosed cavity toward the inner surface of the first plate (Fig. 5 above), wherein the support structure is interconnected to the first plate only via the at least one sidewall (Fig. 5 above; noting connection of the first plate to the second plate is accomplished only by the sidewalls).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 13, 14 and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is also reminded that they should provide specific support from the specification for any claim amendments (emphasis added).
Turning to the current claim amendments, the Examiner provides the following points to be entered into the file wrapper.
1) As noted above, the Examiner questions the veracity of support for the claim amendments. At a minimum, there is a specification objection for lack of antecedent basis.
2) It was the Examiner’s understanding that the disclosed “support structure” spanned “the cavity” from the second plate to the first plate in order to provide support to the first plate (see drawing “A” below, and see current claim 14).
However, this is clearly not what applicant is attempting to claim. That is, claim 11 now claims “wherein the at least four wall are the sole means of interconnecting the first plate to the second plate” (emphasis added). Claim 19 now claims “wherein the support structure is interconnected to the first plate only via at least on sidewall” (emphasis added). Under this claim interpretation, the “support structure” cannot contact the first plate because if it did, it would violate the above amended language in claim 11 and 19, respectively. As such, applicant is clearly attempting to claim a support structure that does not physically contact the first plate, but rather is short of contact with the first plate (i.e. drawing “B” below”; noting even “contact” of the support structure with the first plate would presumably constitute “interconnection” or “means of interconnection”). The Examiner simply notes the above for the record.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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, Eugene Kim can be reached on (571)272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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
8/11/25 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711