DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei (CN201211439Y) and Vandoren (9789417). Fei discloses a rod for a construction toy that is configured to define two opposed carrier ends (2) that are spaced from one another by a variable rod length (1) defining a longitudinal axis (Figs. 1-2). Each end is provided with a magnet (3) affixed to the carrier by a cap block (Fig. 1). The rod is configured to have a rod width that varies periodically between a first width with a first cross-section and a second width with a second cross-section, wherein when the rod length varies a ratio between the first and second widths changes and a distance between the first and second cross-sections also changes (Figs. 1-2) since the rod is formed to provide a foldable periodic structure with a folding angle defined between consecutive folds in the foldable periodic structure that is less than 180 degrees (Figs. 1-3). The rod is also deformable to enable a non-straight line to define a shortest line that passes through the rod and the two opposed ends (Fig. 3). Fei discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of including the rod as a kit having a plurality of rods and magnetic construction elements and wherein the cap has at least two components fixed together to form a truncated cone shape and a curved interface for fixing the magnetic element to the carrier. Vandoren discloses a magnetic construction toy kit (Fig. 2) having a plurality of toy rods (1) and spherical connecting elements (2), wherein tip ends of the rods are configured as two parts fixed together at a seam (Figs. 1 & 7) for attaching a respective magnetic element to a respective carrier (Fig. 9) and are further shaped to define a truncated cone with a first diameter of the tip at a first position being greater than a second diameter of the tip at a second position that is more distal to the rod than the first position and a side surface facing away from the rod having a curved interface for engaging with the spherical connecting elements (Figs. 1 & 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the rod of Fei part of a construction kit with a plurality of rods and spherical magnetic construction elements and to shape the cap blocks as truncated cones with a curved interface formed from two fixed components for the predictable results of providing the rod with enhanced functionality and utility by including it in a kit that enables interesting structures to be created from a plurality of connectable components providing enhanced play value and wherein the shape of the cap provides enhanced connection capabilities with the spherical connecting element and enables the rods to form secure angled connections (Figs. 3-4). It is further noted that having the cap formed of two components fixed together would have been an obvious modification since making parts separable has been held to be an obvious modification. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei and Vandoren as applied above for claim 8 and further in view of Kraenzler (DE3910304A1). Fei and Vandoren disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of including ellipsoid magnetic connecting elements that include north and south poles for attaching to the magnetic elements of the rods. Kraenzler discloses a construction toy kit having rods with ends (3a-c) configured to connect to ellipsoid connecting elements (2a-c) wherein the connecting elements include north and south poles (Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Kraenzler to modify Fei and Vandoren to include ellipsoid connecting elements with north and south poles for the predictable result of providing enhanced functionality and utility by enabling a wider variety of configurations and structures to be formed due to increased versatility in the connections and configurations of the components. Furthermore, using known materials suitable for the intended purpose has been held to be obvious. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Vandoren discloses that the entire rod is formed as two components fixed together not just the ends, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Vandoren discloses that an object that houses a magnet can be formed as two components fixed together and as such providing a teaching for configuring an element that houses a magnet as two components.
The examiner further notes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, making parts separable has been held to be an obvious modification (See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)) and forming elements for retaining magnets including a plurality of component parts are already known in the prior art as shown in 10722809, 8128452 and 7985116 which were previously disclosed as being pertinent to applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 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 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.
/A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
