Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/259,541

A ROD OF VARIABLE LENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION TOYS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jun 27, 2023
Examiner
HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Smart NV
OA Round
4 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 1067 resolved
-23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1111
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1067 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 112 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 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 12 and 14 all disclose that the cap includes at least two components “combining to form a substantially cylindrical carrier” but also disclose that the magnetic element is fixed on a carrier by the cap making the relationship between the cap and carrier unclear since it is unknown if the cap and carrier are the two components or if they are distinct elements and as such the scope of the claim is unascertainable. The claims also further redefine the cap as forming a “truncated cone” and providing two different shapes for the cap within the claims makes what structure is actually required unclear. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as “wherein the cap comprises at least two components, wherein a first diameter of the cap at a first position is greater than a second diameter of the cap at a second position more distal to the rod than the first position, such that the cap forms a truncated cone”. 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 Fish (2014/0199912), KR200325669Y1 and Vandoren (9789417). Fish discloses a plurality of rods (490) for defining a construction toy kit (Fig. 13) wherein each rod is configured to define two opposed ends that are spaced from one another by a variable rod length defining a longitudinal axis (Figs. 12A-B). Each end is provided with a fastening element (494b) that can take the form of a magnet (paragraphs 114-115). The rods are 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. 12A-B) since each 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. 12A-B). The rods are also deformable to enable a non-straight line to define a shortest line that passes through the rod and the two opposed ends (Fig. 8, paragraph 156). Fish discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the rod ends each including a carrier on which the magnetic element rests and a two component cap with a truncated cone shape and a curved interface for fixing the magnetic element to the carrier. KR200325669Y1 discloses a magnetic construction toy kit (abstract) having construction toy rods (31B) and spherical connecting elements (32), wherein the rods are configured such that both ends of each rod include a planar carrier surface for supporting a magnetic element (31C) and a cap (31D) configured with a magnet retaining component (F) and a threaded rod fastening component (Fig. 6) for removably fixing the magnetic element on the carrier (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ends of Fish to include carriers and caps and to include spherical or ellipsoid shaped connecting elements for the predictable results of configuring the ends to receive a magnet in an easy to assemble manner with enhanced functionality and versatility and to configure the kit with connecting elements and features that enable a wider variety of connections to be made for the creation of more elaborate and interesting structures. Vandoren discloses a magnetic construction toy kit (Fig. 2) having toy rods (1) and spherical connecting elements (2), wherein tip ends of the rods are configured 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 shape the cap of Fish and KR200325669Y1 as a truncated cone with a curved interface for the predictable result of shaping the cap to provided enhanced connection capabilities with a spherical connecting element and enabling more secure angled constructions using the rods (Figs. 3-4). Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, KR200325669Y1 and Vandoren as applied above for claim 8 and further in view of Kraenzler (DE3910304A1). Fish, KR200325669Y1 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 Fish, KR200325669Y1 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-15 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. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 24, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 17, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569779
BUBBLE-BLOWING TOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551813
Modular Block System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544683
DRAG RACING STABILITY MANAGEMENT FOR A MODEL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528023
COMBINATION ARTICLES OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPRISING COMPLEMENTARY ACTION FIGURE AND RECONFIGURABLE CASE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12496532
REMOVABLE STRUCTURE OF SIMULATED APPEARANCE OF MUZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+30.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1067 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month