DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/29/25 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed 12/29/25 is accepted.
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 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.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lin (US Pub. No. 2013/0109268 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Lin et al. (herein Lin 2”; US Pub. No. 2019/0232185 A1) and in further view of Bolli (US Pat. No. 4,556,393; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses an electrically conducting toy building block (Fig. 1) comprising: a) a top portion having a top wall and first side walls, the top wall defining a top surface, and the first side walls defining a first bottom edge, and the top wall and first side walls bounding a first cavity to receive an electronic component (Figs. 1 and 2; noting the electronic component can be a light); b) a bottom portion having second side walls defining a top edge and a second bottom edge, the second side walls bounding a second cavity (Fig. 1; proximate items 102 and 13; the second cavity being the cavity formed at the bottom to accommodate studs of another block; see Fig. 6); c) the bottom portion being connected to the top portion in a manner that the second bottom edge abuts the first bottom edge and the first side walls align with the second side walls to create a unified block (Figs. 1 and 2; noting this obvious, specifically item 102 aligning instead the first walls ); e) a plurality of electrically conductive connector studs (Fig. 2), each electrically conductive connector stud of the plurality of electrically conductive connector studs having a contact head (Fig. 2; noting this is inherent), the contact head having an electrically conductive internal surface with an external surface that is dimensioned to match the other electrically conducting connector studs (Fig. 1), each connector stud further having an elongate telescoping member extending downward from the contact head into the first cavity and the second cavity (Fig. 2; noting the telescoping member can be, in combination, the top and bottom plungers, barrel, two springs, and other associated electrical components), the telescoping member being in electrical contact with the internal surface of the contact head (Fig. 6 and par. [0025]; the Examiner taking the broadest reasonable interpretation; noting it is the structure associated with the telescoping member that provides the electrical contact on the inside of the contact head), the telescoping member having an electrically conductive outer barrel (Fig. 3, item 61 and Fig. 6 and par. [0024]; again the Examiner taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, noting item 61 is on the outer barrel and is electrically conductive as described in par. [0025]) and an electrically conductive inner plunger (Fig. 4, item 40/41; specifically calling it a “conductive member”); that is slidably received in the barrel and in electrical contact therewith to define a conductive path through the telescoping member (par. [0025] and Fig. 3, item 61; noting item 61 can be considered part of the barrel), the plunger including a stop member to prevent complete withdrawal of the plunger from the barrel (Fig. 2, annotated below), the plunger being biased towards being extended from the barrel, and the telescoping member having a length that when the plunger is fully extended from the barrel, a bottom of the plunger is within the second cavity proximate a bottom surface defined by the second bottom edge (Fig. 2; noting this obvious); f) the second cavity having spaced projections that define at least a portion of a plurality of engagement portions within the second cavity adapted to frictionally engage the connector studs of another block for friction fit therebetween such that multiple blocks can be connected (Fig. 6); noting this is obvious); and g) wherein when the block is connected to the top surface of the another block the bottom of the plunger may be urged inward by contact with an electrically conductive connector stud on the another block (Fig. 6; noting this is obvious). It is noted that Lin does not specifically disclose that b) the bottom portion being connected to the top portion in a manner that the top edge abuts the first bottom edge, d) a plurality of non-conductive connector studs projecting from the top surface and evenly spaced thereon, and a plurality of holes in the top wall evenly spaced from adjacent non-conductive connector studs of the plurality of non-conductive connector stud, the electrically conductive contact head external surface matching the non-electrically contact head. However, Lin2 discloses a similar type of electric block wherein a top edge of a bottom portion abuts the first bottom edge (Fig. 1D; noting this obvious), a plurality of non-conductive connector studs projecting from the top surface and evenly spaced thereon (Fig. 1A), and a plurality of holes in the top wall evenly spaced from adjacent non-conductive connector studs of the plurality of non-conductive connector stud (Fig. 1C, items 120a), the electrically conductive contact head external surface matching the non-electrically contact head (Fig. 1C, item 1101 as compared to non-conductive protrusions). Furthermore, if there is any question on whether Lin discloses the equally spaced projections in the second cavity, Lin2 clearly shows this (Fig. 1D, proximate item 100b). Thus, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lin to use the above structure as taught by Lin2 because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a block that has electric studs and a block that has electric studs and non-conductive studs with a bottom portion top edge meeting a first bottom edge of the side walls) according to known methods (making the electric block have conventional studs and using a block housing known to work for blocks housing electronics inside the first cavity) to obtain predictable results (using conventional and non-conductive studs on a toy block to allow the user to connect conventional blocks that do not need to pass electricity, and using a housing that is known to work for blocks carrying electrical components on the inside). Finally, it is noted the combined Lin and Lin2 do not specifically disclose a connector stud have a contact head protruding through one of the plurality of holes and electrical contact with the external surface. However, Bolli discloses a similar electric block wherein the top portion of the connector stud protrudes through one of the plurality of holes and electrical contact with the external surface (Fig. 3, item 6 and col. 3, lines 30-66; noting for the record, Bolli: Fig. 1 also makes obvious the external contact head of the electrical and non-electrical match each other). Thus, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Lin and Lin2 to use the above structure as taught by Bolli because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (an electrically passing stud that protrudes through a hole in the top wall, the external surface allowing electrical contact) for another (an electrically passing stud that has an internal telescoping member that passes through a hole in the top wall) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to use a stud that is electrically conductive, the entire stud protruding through the hole in the wall to provide the electric conduction on the external surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combined Lin, Lin2 and Bolli disclose that a spring connected to the plunger to bias the plunger towards being extended from the barrel (Lin: Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, the combined Lin, Lin2 and Bolli disclose that a coil spring within the telescoping member and connected to the plunger to bias the plunger towards being extended from the barrel (Lin: Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 15, the combined Lin, Lin2 and Bolli disclose a clip mechanism cooperating with the top portion and the bottom portion to secure the top portion to the bottom portion (Lin2: Fig. 1D, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
736
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the combined Lin, Lin2 and Bolli disclose the clip mechanism comprises a clasp portion extending from the first bottom edge and a complementary aligned void on the second side wall that captures the clasp portion as the bottom portion is pressed into abutment with the top portion (Lin2: Fig. 1D, reproduced above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not generally persuasive.
The new drawings and specification amendment filed are accepted.
The previous claim objection has been overcome.
The previous 112(b) rejection has been overcome.
103
Applicant argues that “A. Lin Fails to Disclose the "Electrically Conductive Outer Barrel" Defining a Conductive Path” (see Remarks, received 12/29/25, page 10).
Respectfully submitted and broadly speaking, the Examiner disagrees. Lin discloses wire, item 61, that runs on the on the outside of the barrel (see Fig. 6). This wire may be considered part of the barrel and it clearly defines a “conductive path” (par. [0025]). Applicant argues that “Lin does not disclose a telescoping member where the barrel itself is conductive” (emphasis added). First off, the claim never requires the language “the barrel itself”. The claimed language in question is “the telescoping member having an electrically conductive outer barrel”. Second, the word “having” may be construed as “open” ended under MPEP 2111.03 (IV)(noting is applicant’s claiming that only the outer barrel is electrically conductive, because if the whole barrel is conductive, then “having” is surely open ended). Even assuming arguendo that it is close ended, the electrical wire can be considered part of the barrel as it runs on the “outer barrel”.
The Examiner assumes that applicant is attempting to argue that the barrel material itself is “conductive” or that the “entire” barrel is conductive (i.e. noting at least one of these limitations appears to be imported from the specification into the claims given applicant’s arguments). However, this is not claimed. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that it was, the wire performs the exact same purpose as applicant’s claimed invention. That is, the wire in Lin connects to the internal electrical component much like the conductive barrel in applicant’s claimed invention (see Lin: par. [0025]). Restated, while Lin discloses the electrical connection in a different form, it accomplishes the exact same purpose (see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976); noting a change in form to obtain the same result is not a patentable advance).
Applicant goes on to argue that modifying Lin to make the barrel conductive “would destroy the prior art”. Respectfully submitted, as noted above, Lin broadly discloses that the outer barrel is in fact electrically conductive. As such, the argument is not compelling.
Next, applicant argues that Lin does not show that the external surface of the contact head is electrically conductive. Respectfully submitted, Bolli discloses this feature and thus cures the deficiencies of Lin. Applicant argues that combining Lin with Bolli would “short circuit Lin’s central contact to Lin’s outer ring”. Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees. First, applicant points to now disclosure in Lin to support this position. Second, Lin: par. [0025] does discloses a “dual path” system. But the dual path appears to be repetitive in nature, and not a positive/negative path as apparently argued by applicant (noting the Examiner can only assuming that “short circuit” is predicated on touching/connecting positive and negative ends together). However, as explained in Lin: par. [0025], the dual path appears to be redundant in nature (see par. [0025] stating “when any one of the electricity connection units (including the first wire 51 and the second wire 61) is connected with the power source, the control circuit boards 11 are powered and the light members 14 are turned on”; emphasis added). As such, using a single external electrical head as taught by Bolli would not “short circuit” the central contact of Lin.
Applicant then argues that there is no teaching to replace the “complex pin” components of Lin with the solid electrical pin of Bolli. Respectfully submitted, the teaching is Bolli. Restated, Bolli teaches a POSA that the protruding building element connector of Lin can be replaced with a solid connector.
Applicant next argues that the Examiner has not correctly gone on record for limitations being obvious and thus has used impermissible hindsight. Specifically, applicant argues that the Examiner does not show “the second cavity”. Respectfully, this is shown Lin: Fig. 2 annotated above. As far as the “connector structure”, the Examiner assumes applicant is referring to the teachings of Bolli. This has been addressed above.
On page 12, applicant argues that “There is no motivation within Lin to replace its delicate internal switch mechanism with a telescoping member having an electrically conductive outer barrel and an electrically conductive inner plunger that is slidably received in the barrel and in electrical contact therewith to define a conductive path through the telescoping member and extend it deep into the second cavity of a lower block”. Respectfully submitted, regarding the italicized language, Lin already discloses this. Regarding the electrically conductive outer barrel, Bolli makes obvious the ability to use a solid connector.
On page 12, applicants again argues the “dual-channel insulating connector”. Again, Lin appears to show redundancy in the system (par. [0025]). Utilizing a dual system so that connection at a single solid connector at the top (as shown in Bolli) would not render Lin unsatisfactory for its intended purpose nor would it short circuit it. It would simply allow two different pathways to ensure that the solid connector at the top is electrically connected to the bottom/second cavity.
Finally, applicant argues that the examiner “picks and chooses” features to reject the claims. The Examiner agrees that certain features from secondary and tertiary references are used to cure the deficiencies of Lin. However, the Examiner has provided KSR rationale for those combinations.
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 Stanczak whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 8:30 to 3:30 EST.
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