DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
3. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 01/01/2026. Claims 1-9 have been canceled; and new claims 10-19 have been added. Therefore, claims 10-19 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 17 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites, “wherein different integration pieces consist of different lengths while sharing the same geometry” (emphasis added).
However, the original disclosure does not have sufficient written description regarding different integration pieces that have different lengths while having the same geometry. In contrast, the original disclosure is merely providing a generic description regarding the use of integration pieces (3) of different length and different geometric shapes. Moreover, none of the figures, per the original drawing, supports the newly added claim above since none of the figures includes a scaling parameter that suggests the new limitation above.
Accordingly, at least for the reason above, current claim 17 constitutes new subject matter.
5. 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.
● Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Claim 10 recites two different terms; namely, “center piece” and “central piece”; and accordingly, it is unclear whether each of the above terms is referring to the same feature or two different features.
Also see (a) each of claims 12, 15, 16 and 18, which uses “center piece”; whereas (b) claim 19 uses the term “central piece”.
Thus, claims 10-19, as currently presented, are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
(b) Claim 11 recites, “other polygonal prismatic shapes and cylindrical” (emphasis added); however, it is unclear what is encompassed per the term “other” since the above term is unbounded. Thus, claim 11 is further indefinite at least for the reason above.
Applicant is further recommended to evaluate each of the current claims and make preproperate corrections if additional discrepancies exist.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claim 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pearce 3,600,825.
Regarding claim 10, Pearce teaches the following claimed limitations: an educational game kit (col.1, lines 14-20: e.g., a kit comprising constructional material for educational/teaching application—such as, constructing models, tools, etc.) comprising: a plurality of center pieces, each comprising a plurality of flat outer surfaces (see FIG 3, label “25”; and FIG 25: e.g., label “25” of FIG 3 shows a universal node; and FIG 25 shows such plurality of universal nodes; and thus, the universal nodes correspond to the claimed plurality of “center pieces”; and wherein each center piece already has a plurality of flat outer surfaces); a plurality of integration pieces (col.3, lines 61-63; col. 7, lines 9-12: e.g., as part of the kit, multiple struts are provided—such as, multiple rectangular struts, including those connected with splices, etc. Accordingly, such struts correspond to the plurality of “integration pieces”); wherein each flat outer surface of each central piece comprises a respective integrated projection extending outwardly from a single central region of a respective flat outer surface of a respective central piece (see FIG 1 or FIG 3, labels “110”: e.g., there is a respective spoke that extends from the central part of each flat outer surface of each of the universal nodes, i.e., the central pieces; and accordingly, the spoke above corresponds to the claimed “integrated projection”), and wherein each integration piece comprises opposite end portions, wherein each end portion of each integration piece comprises a niche, wherein each niche comprises a predefined geometric cross-section (See FIG 9: e.g., at least each of the rectangular struts already represents each “integration pieces”; and wherein each of these struts, such as the one labeled “110A” per FIG 9, has two ends; and wherein each end has a geometric cavity/socket. Accordingly, the geometric socket corresponds to the claimed “niche”, which comprises a predefined geometric cross-section), wherein each niche is configured to removably receive a corresponding integrated projection of a flat surface of a center piece only when the geometric cross-section of the niche matches a geometric cross-section of the corresponding integrated projection, such that the integration pieces are selectively connectable to different flat outer surfaces of a center piece to form a three-dimensional assembled structure (see col.2, lines 70-75; col.7, lines 9-12: e.g., each geometrical socket/niche of each strut—i.e., “integration piece”—is configured to removably receive a similarly shaped spoke—i.e. “integrated projection”—that extends from the flat surface of a given universal node, which is the “center piece”; and accordingly, when making such connections selectively using the plurality of center pieces and the plurality of integration pieces, a three-dimensional assembled structure—see FIG 25—is assembled).
Pearce teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 10. Pearce further teaches:
Regarding claim 11, wherein each of the integrated projections is selected from a group comprising cubic, triangular prismatic, square prismatic, rectangular prismatic, pentagonal prismatic, hexagonal prismatic or other polygonal prismatic shapes and cylindrical (see FIG 3, labels “100”, “110”, “111”: e.g., each spoke, which represents the claimed “integrated projection”, already has a shape of a square, a rectangle, a triangle; and thus, each of the integrated projections is selected from a group comprising cubic, triangular prismatic, etc.);
Regarding claim 12, wherein each center piece comprises at least six or more flat outer surfaces (see FIG 3, label “25”; also FIG 25, which depicts a plurality of universal nodes: e.g., each universal node already represents each center piece; and furthermore, each of the universal nodes—i.e., each center piece—does have six or more flat outer surfaces even though the flat surfaces are not labeled);
Regarding claim 13, wherein geometric cross-sections of the integrated projections are selected from a group consisting of square, triangular, rectangular, polygonal, circular shapes and cylindrical (see FIG 3, labels “100”, “110”, “111”: e.g., each of the one or more spokes, which represents the claimed “integrated projection”, already has a geometric shape in the form of a square, a rectangle, a triangle; and thus, the geometric cross-sections of the integrated projections are selected from a group consisting of square, triangular, etc.);
Regarding claim 14, wherein each of the integration pieces is linear, and wherein the integration piece comprises a length ratio greater than the width ratio (see FIG 6, label “100A”; FIG 9 OR FIG 25, label “110A”, etc.: e.g., besides being linear, the aspect ratio—i.e., the length-to-width ratio—of each strut is greater than unity. In this regard, as already pointed out above per claim 10, each of the struts represents each of the integration pieces);
Regarding claim 15, wherein the integration pieces are detachable from the center piece without any deformation or change in the integrated projections (see col.2, lines 70-75; col.3, lines 69-72; col.4, lines 3-5: e.g., each of the struts, i.e., each of the integration pieces, already comprises two ends; and wherein each end has a polygonal socket—such as, a rectangular socket, a triangular socket, etc., and wherein, each of these socket receives a correspondingly shaped spoke—i.e., an integrated projection—that extends from the universal node, which is the center piece. The above socket arrangement confirms that the integration pieces are detachable from the center piece without any deformation or change in the integrated projections);
Regarding claim 16, wherein each of the integrated projections extends perpendicularly from a corresponding flat outer surface of a respective center piece (see FIG 3, labels “100”, “110”, “111”: e.g., each spoke—i.e., each integrated projection—is extending perpendicularly from its corresponding plane/face of the universal node, which is the center piece);
Regarding claim 17, wherein different integration pieces consist of different lengths while sharing the same geometry (col.4, lines 25-34; col.7, lines 9-12: e.g., each of the struts—i.e., integration pieces—share the same geometry since each of them has a rectangular shape; and furthermore, a splice is used to create one or more struts, each with different lengths. In particular, using the rectangular splice, the implementation is already capable of proving multiple rectangular struts with different lengths. Thus, the above already achieves different integration pieces with different lengths while sharing the same geometry);
Regarding claim 18, wherein the three-dimensional assembled structure is reconfigurable by detaching an integration piece from one flat outer surface of a center piece and attaching it to another flat outer surface of the center piece (see col.2, lines 70-75; col.7, lines 9-12; also see FIG 25: e.g., as already discussed per claim 10, each geometrical socket/niche of each strut—i.e., “integration piece”—is configured to removably receive a similarly shaped spoke—i.e. “integrated projection”—that extends from the flat surface of a given universal node, which is the “center piece”; and accordingly, once can assemble the desired 3D structure by attaching/detaching each of the one or more struts from one or more universal nodes, which represent center pieces);
Regarding claim 19, wherein the integration pieces are configured with respective surfaces of the central piece to obtain a plurality of multidimensional connections and creating different dimensional tools, equipment and materials of a plurality of three-dimensional assembled structures with different shapes, sizes and structures (see col.2, lines 70-75; col.7, lines 9-12; also FIG 25: e.g., when connecting each strut—i.e., “integration piece”—to a correspondingly shaped spoke that extends from the surfaces of the universal node/center piece, the surface of the strut meets/touches the surface of the center piece as it is fitted; and accordingly, by connecting multiple struts/integration pieces with multiple universal nodes/center pieces, as shown per FIG 25, a plurality of multidimensional connections can be obtained; thereby creating different dimensional tools, equipment and materials of a plurality of three-dimensional assembled structures with different shapes, sizes and structures, etc.).
Response to Arguments.
7. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 01/01/2026); however, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while failing to properly construe the teaching of Pearce as applied to the claims, Applicant makes various conclusory assertions:
“claim 10 recites ‘An educational game kit, comprising a plurality of center pieces . . . a plurality of integration pieces’ and a niche on each end portion of each integration piece. On the other hand, Pearce does not discloses these elements and instead discloses connectors, struts, bond links, splices, face links”;
“claim 11 recites "wherein the integrated projections are selected from a group comprising cubic, triangular prismatic . . . other polygonal prismatic shapes’ Pearce does not disclose the center piece comprising projections or having a plurality of shapes”;
“claim 14 discloses ‘wherein each of the integration pieces is linear . . . length ratio greater than the width ratio’. Pearce does not disclose the integration piece and their respective length to width ratio as claimed”.
However, none of Applicant’s conclusory assertions above constitutes a valid argument. This is because Applicant fails to articulate the reason (if any) why Pearce is considered to fail to teach any of the claimed limitations. In particular, Applicant not only fails to challenge the specific sections cited from the reference, but also fails to challenge the interpretation that the Office has provided regarding the teaching of Pearce. Instead, while simply listing the claimed limitations, Applicant appears to make a subjective collusion that lacks factual findings. For instance, regarding claim 11, Applicant fails to provide any valid reason (if any) why the plurality of universal nodes (FIG 25, label “25”) are not representing the plurality of “center pieces” that the claim is reciting. Similarly, Applicant fails to provide any valid reason (if any) why the socket, which is located on each end of each strut—i.e., an “integration piece”—is not considered to be the “niche” that the claim is reciting (e.g., see the parts labeled “Socket” per FIG 9A below. Note that FIG 9A is generated based on FIG 9 of Pearce).
Of course, the same is true regarding Applicant’s conclusory assertions presented per claim 11 and claim 14. Accordingly, Applicant’s generic conclusions are not even relevant to challenge—much less negate—the Office’s finings.
Applicant further asserts that “the new claims do not recite a central node, and the Examiner has mis-understood and correlated the ‘central node’ disclosed by Pearce with the ‘center piece’ as disclosed by the present invention by the applicant. Pearce nowhere states or discloses specifically and explicitly presence of a center piece which has similar functions or appearance as claimed by Applicant. Pearce discloses connectors (including nodes), and a universal node comprising a central member having spokes. Accordingly Pearce discloses a universal node having spokes configured to nodes. Pearce does not disclose a center piece comprising of integrated projects as now claimed” (emphasis added).
However, once again while failing to appreciate the basic teachings of Pearce, Applicant’s fails to correctly construe the universal node (e.g., see FIG 3 or FIG 25, label “25”), which represents the “center piece” that the current claims are reciting. In particular, unlike Applicant’s incorrect theory, Pearce is not necessarily required to use the terms “center piece” or “central piece” since such labeling is irrelevant. Instead, one has to evaluate the structural and/or functional features of the claimed element. Moreover, again quite contrary to Applicant’s assumption, the universal node, which represents the claimed center piece, does incorporate a plurality of spokes, which represent the “integrated projections” that the claims are reciting. So far, Applicant fails to challenge the teaching above. Instead, Applicant appears to rely on the exact wordings in the claims, as opposed to the structural and/or functional features that the words are defining.
Accordingly, at least for the reasons above, Applicant fails to challenge any of the Office’s findings. Moreover, the observations above demonstrate that none of the current claims is patentable over the prior art.
Conclusion
8. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final 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 filled 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715