DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on November 18, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-5 are pending with claim 2 canceled, and claims 1, 3, and 4 currently amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Smithsonian Institution in the “Mega Science Lab” as witnessed and published under the title, “Reviewing the Smithsonian Mega Science Lab Volcano Edition Episode 1 of 6” by “Hi Gavin Gabe” on YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8KZiaum1NU] published on January 9, 2021 (hereinafter, “Smithsonian”) and the product published on YouTube under the title, “Massive Erupting Volcano” by the YouTube Channel, “Thames & Kosmos” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMUVOgROWoY] published on January 20, 2021 (hereinafter, T&K).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), the Smithsonian discloses:
A model science kit (Smithsonian, 0:07 of 15:35, The Presenter displays the “Smithsonian Mega Science Lab” box.) comprising:
a plurality of flat members including a base member and connecting members, each comprising at least one slot in the form of a slit extending through an outer edge of the respective member (Smithsonian, 2:25 of 15:35, The Presenter displays the two flat members with slots.);
wherein the plurality of connecting members are configured to interconnect to the base member to form a hollow frame (Smithsonian, 4:58 of 15:35, The Presenter fastens the base at which the volcano sits to the foundation of the surface of the volcano.);
a first material which is in a shape of a flat sheet when fully extended, and is configured to be self-adhering when saturated with water and which dries into a hardened material (Smithsonian, 5:09-6:36 of 15:35, The Presenter displays the gauze wrap that forms the plaster wrap which is extended and later saturated with water.); and
a second material configured to become moldable when saturated with water and to dry into a hardened material (Smithsonian, 5:09 of 15:35, The plaster that is mixed with the gauze wrap to form the plaster wrap.),
wherein the first material is configured to be laid over the hollow frame to form a first surface (Smithsonian, 7:10 of 15:35, The Presenter begins to wrap the gauze wrap around the foundation of the surface of the volcano.), and
wherein the second material is configured to be laid over the first surface to form a second surface (Smithsonian, 7:19 of 15:35, The Presenter begins to wrap the plaster wrap around the foundation of the surface of the volcano in overlapping layers.).
Smithsonian discloses a base member at the bottom of the volcanic science kit, but Smithsonian does not disclose a second base member near the center of the volcanic science kit.
T&K, however, discloses:
a base member near the center of the volcanic science kit (T&K, 0:11 of 0:33); and
sliding the respective slits of the base members and connecting members into one another to form a friction fit (T&K, 0:11 of 0:33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a base member at the bottom of a volcanic science kit, as taught by Smithsonian, and center of a volcanic science kit, as taught by T&K, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant has elected to cancel the claim after the First Action on the Merits.
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Smithsonian/T&K discloses:
The model science kit of claim 1, wherein the kit is a model volcano science kit (Smithsonian, Title, “…Volcano Edition…”) and
wherein the plurality of flat base members each has a hollow ring in a center of the flat base member (Smithsonian, 4:07 of 15:35, The hollow ring is displayed in the center.).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Smithsonian/T&K discloses:
The model science kit of claim 3, wherein the kit further comprises:
a fastening member configured to attach to the plurality of flat connecting members (Smithsonian, 3:20 of 15:35, Tape is placed on one of the flat members.);
a first reactant mix (Smithsonian, 9:57 of 15:35, The Presenter retrieves the Vinegar.);
a second reactant mix (Smithsonian, 10:12 of 15:35, The Presenter retrieves the Baking Soda.); and
a reactant vessel (Smithsonian, 3:00 of 15:35, The Presenter displays the reactant vessel that will be attached to the top of the hollow tub which secures the baking soda to the mouth of the volcano.),
wherein the first reactant mix and the second reactant mix are configured to chemically react with each other to produce a gas (Smithsonian, 13:45 of 15:35, The Presenter begins mixing the vinegar and baking soda which produces carbon dioxide gas.), and
wherein a dye is present in at least one of the reactant mixes (Smithsonian, 10:22 of 15:35, The Presenter retrieves the food coloring.).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Smithsonian/T&K discloses:
The model science kit of claim 4, further comprising:
a tube attached to the vessel which leads to a top of the hollow frame (Smithsonian, 4:07 of 15:35, The tube is displayed in the center.); and
a separating structure which is configured to releasably separate the first reactant mix and the second reactant mix from one another, and which is configured to cause the first reactant mix and the second reactant mix to combine when released (Smithsonian, 13:46 of 15:35, The Presenter utilizes a measuring cup to separate the vinegar from the baking soda before controllably releasing the vinegar to mix with the baking soda.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of the Remarks, filed November 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5 of the Remarks, filed November 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the Applicant’s amendments and a different interpretation of the previously applied reference. See the rejection of claims 1, 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the corresponding section above for further details.
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715