DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the at least one male and at least one female connector and receptable having “a tapered cylindrical shape that tapers with the constant camber angle” of claim 1 and the “at least one internal chamber including multiple internal claims interposed between the multiple female connector receptacles” of claim 6 should be added to the specification for proper antecedent basis.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US Pub. No. 2019/0030449 A1) in view of Kirsten et al. (herein “Kirsten”; US Pub. No. 2018/0140962 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mooney discloses a toy construction block set (Fig. 12), comprising: a plurality of interconnectable blocks (Fig. 12), wherein the plurality of interconnectable blocks includes a first block and a separate and distinct second block (Fig. 12; making this obvious); wherein each of the plurality of interconnectable blocks has a main body with a top surface and a bottom surface (Figs. 11A and 11B being exemplary for the blocks shown in Fig. 12), wherein the main body is molded from a thermoplastic elastomer material (par. [0059]; noting LLDPE and PA are both “thermoplastic elastomers”; noting “molded” is merely a product-by-process limitation, and since the product is shown, the burden shifts back to applicant to show the process provides an unobvious product) that enables the main body to elastically stretch in all directions by at least ten percent without damage (pars. [0059]-[0060]; noting this is functionally possible given the material as applicant has not specified a particular TPE to be used in the specification, also see par. [0060] making obvious both “rubber” and “silicone” which are inherently stretchy, so it would be obvious to use a thermoplastic elastomer that is stretchy much like the disclosed rubber and silicone); wherein each of the plurality of interconnectable blocks has at least one male connector protrusion extending from the top surface (Fig. 11A, items 423a and 423b); and at least one female connector receptacle formed into the bottom surface (Fig. 11B, items 424a and 424b); wherein the at least one male connector protrusion has a tapered cylindrical shape that tapers with a constant camber angle as the at least one male connector protrusion extends away from the top surface of the main body (Fig. 11A, item 423a showing cylindrical connector and Fig. 13, item 524a clearly showing a gradually tapered connector, noting this appears obvious from the figure, but also specifically see par. [0047] making “taper” obvious); wherein the at least one female connector receptacle has a tapered cylindrical shape that tapers with the constant camber angle as the at least one female connector receptacle extends into the bottom surface of the main body (Fig. 11B, item 424a showing cylindrical, and Fig. 13, item 524a clearly showing a gradually tapered connector, noting this appears obvious from the figure, but also specifically see par. [0046] and [0048] making “taper” obvious); wherein the at least one male connector protrusion on the first block can pass into and engage the at least one female connector receptacle on the second block with an interference fit (Fig. 12; noting this is obvious given structure and specifically par. [0099]), wherein the at least one female connector receptacle on the second block elastically widens when compressed against the at least one male connector protrusion on the first block in order to receive the at least one male connector protrusion (pars. [0059]-[0060]; the Examiner believes that this is obvious and functionally possible given the ability to make the material from a thermoplastic elastomer, and given the ability to make it flexible like “rubber or silicone”); wherein the first block and the second block each has at least one internal chamber formed into the main body, wherein the at least one internal chamber is separate and distinct from the at least one female connector receptacle (par. [0082] and Fig. 9A; noting the internal portion of the block is hollow; meeting the claimed limitation; alternatively, this can simply be the second female connector in Fig. 11B that can be labeled as a “internal chamber”; noting “internal”, broadly speaking, just means it runs into the internal portion of the block). In the alternative, assuming arguendo that Mooney does not specifically disclose that the material is a thermoplastic elastomer and has the necessary properties as required above, Kirsten discloses a similar connecting toy wherein the material used is a thermoplastic elastomer (par. [0027]; noting “thermoplastic rubber” is a “thermoplastic elastomer”). Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the disclosed “thermoplastic elastomer”, “rubber or silicone” of Mooney cannot inherently meet the “stretching in all direction by at least ten percent without damage” and the “at least one female connector receptacle on the second block elastically widens”, it is the Examiner’s position that the TPR or TPE disclosed in Kirsten can functionally and inherently meet the limitation as applicant has not specified a particular TPE to be used in the specification. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mooney to make the material from thermoplastic elastomer as taught by Kirsten because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (thermoplastic elastomer that is rubber-like) for another (thermoplastic elastomer and the disclosure that the material can be like rubber or silicone) to obtain predictable results (using a thermoplastic elastomer as the material of the block, the material being rubber-like in nature and sufficient enough to be elastic, but rigid enough to support other blocks – see Kirsten: par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that each the at least one internal chamber is sealed within each the main body (Mooney: Figs. 11A and 13; the Examiner taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sealed” to mean “to close or fasten with a seal” as defined by thefreedictionary.com, see Fig. 13, item 541b and 542b and par. [0127]).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that the at least one internal chamber extends into the at least one male connector protrusion (Fig. 7, item 223b; noting this embodiment shows the clearest view that the protrusion, item 223b, is hollow on the inside, and noting it would be obvious to apply this teaching to the embodiment as shown in Fig. 11A with the cylindrical protrusions).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that each the at least one internal chamber is a single internal chamber formed within each the main body, wherein the at least one male connector protrusion and the at least one female connector receptacle are disposed on opposite sides of the internal chamber (Mooney: Figs. 9A, 11A, and 13; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 16, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that the first block and the second block have different shapes (Mooney: Figs. 8B and 9B; as seen in Fig. 12; noting much like Fig. 8B, Fig. 12 makes obvious double connection/stud blocks, item 400c, and much like Fig. 9B, Fig. 12 makes obvious single connection/stud blocks, item 440’b).
Regarding claim 17, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that the first block and the second block are of different sizes (Mooney: Figs. 8B and 9B; as seen in Fig. 12; noting much like Fig. 8B, Fig. 12 makes obvious double connection/stud blocks, item 400c, and much like Fig. 9B, Fig. 12 makes obvious single connection/stud blocks, item 440’b).
Regarding claim 18, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that the at least one male connector protrusion elongates and eliminates the interference fit when the first block is pulled away from the second block (Mooney: pars. [0059]-[0060] and Kirsten: par. [0027]; noting the Examiner construes this functional limitation as possible given the structure and the ability to make the block out of thermoplastic elastomer that may be rubber-like).
Regarding claim 19, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that at least one male connector protrusion widens and increases the interference fit when the first block is connected to the second block and is biased toward the second block (Mooney: pars. [0059]-[0060] and Kirsten: par. [0027]; noting the Examiner construes this functional limitation as possible given the structure and the ability to make the block out of thermoplastic elastomer that may be rubber-like).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US Pub. No. 2019/0030449 A1) in view of Kirsten et al. (herein “Kirsten”; US Pub. No. 2018/0140962 A1) and in further view of Park (KR Pub. No. 20220067428 A; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that the combined Mooney and Kirsten do not specifically disclose that each the at least one internal chamber is filled only with lubricated particles. However, Mooney clearly discloses the use of a hollow block (par. [0082] and Fig. 9A). In addition, Park discloses a similar block wherein the internal chamber is filled only with lubricated particles (par. [0013] of machine translation; noting “water and starch”; starch being the particles, and water being the lubricant). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Mooney and Kirsten to fill the internal chamber with lubricated particles as taught by Park because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a block with a hollow interior and block with a hollow interior filled by lubricated particles) according to known methods (filling the interior chamber with lubricated particles) to yield predictable results (using lubricated particles in a hollow block, the filling known to work in hollow blocks).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US Pub. No. 2019/0030449 A1) in view of Kirsten et al. (herein “Kirsten”; US Pub. No. 2018/0140962 A1) and in further view of Coleman (US Pat. No. 6,571,525 B2).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that the at least one female connector receptacle includes multiple female connector receptacles extending into the main body (Mooney: Fig. 11B; noting “two” meets the limitation “multiple”). It is noted that the combined Mooney and Kirsten do not specifically disclose that the at least one internal chamber includes multiple internal chambers interposed between the multiple female connector receptacles. However, Mooney discloses at most a two stud/hole block (Fig. 11B). In addition, Coleman discloses a similar four stud/hole block wherein the at least one internal chamber includes multiple internal chambers interposed between the multiple female connector receptacles (Figs. 2 and 4, noting the very top and bottom holes in Fig. 4 can be the “multiple female connectors”, and the two middle holes can be the “multiple internal chambers”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Mooney and Kirsten to use multiple internal chambers as taught by Coleman because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a block having two studs/holes, and a block have four studs/holes with the two middle holes considered the “internal chambers”) according to known methods (using a four stud/hole block as opposed to a two stud/hole block) to yield predicable results (a block having four holes and four studs, the two middle female hole connectors on the bottom being considered “internal chambers” and the two outer holes being considered “female connectors”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US Pub. No. 2019/0030449 A1) in view of Kirsten et al. (herein “Kirsten”; US Pub. No. 2018/0140962 A1) and in further view of Fujihara et al. (herein “Fujihara”; US Pub. No. 2009/0105396 A1).
Regarding claim 7, is noted the combined Mooney and Kirsten disclose that do not specifically disclose that the thermoplastic elastomer each forming the main body is mixed with a plasticizing oil. However, Mooney discloses the ability to use a thermoplastic elastomer as the body material (par. [0059]; noting LLDPE and PA are both “thermoplastic elastomers”). In addition, Kirsten also discloses the ability to use a thermoplastic elastomer as the body material (par. [0027]). Finally, Fujihara discloses the ability to use a thermoplastic elastomer with a plasticizing oil (par. [0041]) to produce a material used in toys (par. [0049]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Mooney and Kirsten to use a plasticizing oil with the elastomer as taught by Weng because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a plasticizing oil with a thermoplastic elastomer) to improve a similar product (a toy that can be made from a thermoplastic elastomer) in the same way (using a plasticizing oil with a thermoplastic elastomer, the plasticizing oil acting as a softening material for the elastomer material).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US Pub. No. 2019/0030449 A1) in view of Kirsten et al. (herein “Kirsten”; US Pub. No. 2018/0140962 A1) in view of Park (KR Pub. No. 20220067428 A; as cited in applicant’s IDS) and in further view of Kapusta (US Pat. No. 4,925,338).
Regarding claim 8, is noted that the Mooney, Kirsten, and Park do not specifically disclose that the thermoplastic elastomer forming each the main body is translucent to enable the fill material to be viewed through the thermoplastic elastomer. However, Mooney discloses the ability to use a construction element that is hollow (par. [0082] and Fig. 9A) and the ability to use a thermoplastic material for the body (par. [0059]). In addition, Kapusta discloses a construction element (abstract) wherein the element can be hollow (col. 9, lines 10-31) and wherein the element material can be transparent and/or translucent so that the contents can be viewed (col. 9, lines 10-31; col. 7, lines 14-24, and col. 8, lines 51-54). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Mooney, Kirsten, and Park to make the outer material transparent and/or translucent as taught by Kapusta because doing so would be use of a known technique (making the outer walls of a hollow construction element transparent and/or translucent) to improve a similar product (a toy that can be hollow and have walls made from thermoplastic elastomer) in the same way (making the thermoplastic elastomer walls of the hollow toy element translucent and/or transparent so that the contents can be view on the inside).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 1-8 and 16-19 have been considered but are generally 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 (emphasis added).
For purposes of prosecution clarity, the Examiner assumes that Fig. 9 of applicant’s disclosure continues to read on at least claims 1 and 6 of the current claims. While applicant refers to a different embodiment in the arguments (i.e. the embodiment of Fig. 4), it appears that applicant intends Fig. 9 to also read on claim 1. That is, if Fig. 9 does not show “the at least one internal chamber includes multiple internal chambers interposed between the multiple female connectors” of claim 6, then this limitation clearly needs to be shown in the drawings (i.e. there is a drawing objection). Afterall, it is not until claim 2 that applicant requires the chamber to be “sealed” as shown in the argued embodiment of Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Ochi reference has been removed from the rejection. As such, all arguments directed at Ochi are moot. Park is still used. Park is used in the rejection of claims 4 and 8. In claim 4, it is used to show that a POSA would understand that the Mooney block can be filled with “lubricated particles” (i.e. starch and water) (see Remarks, page 3, applicant admitting this on the record). In summary, this is the only limitation that Park is used to show in the current rejection.
The Kirsten reference is also still used. Kirsten is brought in to show that a thermoplastic elastomer that is rubber-like can be used. Applicant does not specifically dispute this finding. This is the only limitation that Kirsten is brough in to show in the current rejection.
As for claims 18 and 19, the claims are functionally possible given the structure. While the prior art may not specifically disclose this limitation as argued by applicant, the limitation would be functionally possible given the structure and disclosed materials.
The McIntosh reference has been removed from the rejection. As such, all arguments directed at McIntosh are moot.
With regards to claim 7, applicant does not argue the Fujihara reference with any specificity.
With regards to claim 8, applicant does not argue Kapusta with any specificity.
No other arguments are advanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
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
3/11/26