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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19, filed 10/18/2023, are pending and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for retaining the end portion of the locking pin in the opening in the female connector” in claim 1, “means for holding the locking pin in the first female connector when the locking pin is in the retracted state” in claim 4, “means for holding the locking pin in the first female connector when the locking pin is in the lowered state” in claims 5-6, “means for retaining the anchor pen in a storage position” and “means for keeping the anchor peg in the slot once inserted” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “means for retaining the end portion of the locking pin in the opening in the female connector” in claim 1 being disclosed as the slot and movable protrusion (63/65) as described in claim 3, [0067], Fig. 6B.
The “means for holding the locking pin in the first female connector when the locking pin is in the retracted state” in claim 4 being disclosed as the first rib (171) positioned in the slot near the end portion of the locking pin to engage the ramp of the moveable protrusion as described in claim 7, [0016], [0073], Fig. 6E.
The “means for holding the locking pin in the first female connector when the locking pin is in the lowered state” in claims 5-6 being disclosed as the second rib (177) as described in claim 8, [0017], [0075], Fig. 6G-H.
The “means for retaining the anchor peg in a storage position” and “means for keeping the anchor peg in the slot once inserted” in claim 11 being disclosed as a catch mechanism and notch on the anchor peg ([0096]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the lowered state holding means” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" (in this case “preferably”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickinson US Pat. No. 1,610,121.
In Reference to Claim 1
Dickinson teaches:
An interlocking form for use in building sand structures (series of connectable panels 1 and 2 connectable to form a sand structure building, Fig. 1-4, 9) comprising:
a body portion having opposing first and second end portions and first and second surfaces (each panel body 12 has opposing left and right end portions and inner and outer first and second surfaces extending between the ends), one of the first and second surfaces having first protrusions extending therefrom to simulate a wall structure (each panel body 1, 2 has a plurality of protrusions forming house wall features, such as windows and doors 12, Fig. 1-4),
the first end portion including first and second spaced apart female connectors and the second end portion including third and fourth spaced apart female connectors (the panels, notably panel 2 at the front of Fig. 1, has two female connectors 7 and another female connector 4 at a first connected left end of the panel and two female connectors 5 and one female connector 6 at the second connected right end of the panel);
a locking pin (locking pins 8) comprising a top portion, body portion, and end portion (pins 8 have a bent top end, a main body, and a lower end that extends through the connectors to connect the adjacent panels to one another), the body portion sized to slide in an opening in the first female connector and in an opening in the second female connector such that the end portion can extend from a bottom of the second female connector when the locking pin is in a lowered state (Fig. 1-3 shows the pins 8 fully inserted through respective openings in each connector in a lowered state to allow the frame portions to be connected and secured to a ground surface to allow for filling of sand in the interlocking mold form) and be positioned in the opening of the first female connector when the locking pin is in a retracted state (the pin 8 is fully movable within the female connectors to a retracted state for partial removal (placing the bottom end out of the ground surface to allow for free movement of the mold or fully removing the pins to allow for the panels to be unconnected for storage or transport, or any retracted position therebetween); and
means for retaining the end portion of the locking pin in the opening in the first female connector to keep the locking pin and body portion together when the interlocking form is used for sand structure building (the ends of the pins 8 are pointed so that they are engaged with a ground surface below the panels which rest on a sand or other ground surface, which frictionally retains the lower end of the pin in place during filling of sand in the mold, page 1 lines 16-34, 69-89, which is a functional equivalent to the retaining means as disclosed).
In Reference to Claim 2
The interlocking form of claim 1, wherein the body portion is curved or straight (the panels 1, 2, are generally planar/straight in shape, Fig. 1-4).
In Reference to Claim 5
The interlocking form of claim 1, further comprising a means for holding the locking pin in the first female connector when the locking pin is in the lowered state (the ends of the pins 8 are pointed so that they are engaged with a ground surface below the panels which rest on a sand or other ground surface, which frictionally retains the lower end of the pin in place during filling of sand in the mold, page 1 lines 16-34, 69-89, which is an equivalent to the disclosed retaining means).
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.
Claims 3-4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson as applied to claims 1 and 5 above and further in view of Harvey US Pat. No. 6,176,464.
In Reference to Claim 4
Dickinson teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 1 as rejected above.
Dickinson fails to teach:
Further comprising means for holding the locking pin in the first female connector when the locking pin is in the retracted state.
Further, Harvey teaches:
A similar interlocking form for use in building moldable material structures (10, Fig. 1-7) having body portions (102/102’/102’’/104/104’/104’’) connectable to one another using female connectors and locking pins (140, Fig. 6a-b), the locking pins having first ends (144), bodies (142), and lower ends (146) movable within the connectors such that the lower end may extend out of the connector in a lowered position (end 146 extends through the bottom opening 126 in the lowered position and retained via the shape of end 146 holding against the narrower opening 126, Fig. 6a), and retained within the connector in a retracted state (lower end 146 is retained within the connector in area 136 above the narrow opening 126 in the retracted position, Fig. 6b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Dickinson to have modified the locking pins to have been cooperatively shaped with the connectors such that they extend through the connector in a lowered position to anchor the panels in place for filling the form and retained within the connector in a retracted position as an alternative or equivalent pin retaining means known in the art as taught by Harvey (Col. 3 lines 31-50) and therefore to allow the panels to be removed without full removal of the pins therefore preventing loss of the pins when the device is not in use.
In Reference to Claim 6
Dickinson as modified by Harvey teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 4, further comprising a means for holding the locking pin in the first female connector when the locking pin is in the lowered state (Dickinson: the ends of the pins 8 are pointed so that they are engaged with a ground surface below the panels which rest on a sand or other ground surface, which frictionally retains the lower end of the pin in place during filling of sand in the mold, page 1 lines 16-34, 69-89, which is an equivalent to the disclosed retaining means, and further modified by Harvey where pin end 146 is retained in the lowered position due to the shape of 146 held against the narrow opening 126, Fig. 6a).
In Reference to Claim 3
Dickinson teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 1 as rejected above.
Dickinson fails to teach:
Wherein the retaining means further comprises: a slot in the locking pin, the slot including a bottom surface; and a moveable protrusion in the first female connector, the moveable protrusion having a ramp terminating at a free end portion of the moveable protrusion, the ramp and free end portion extending into the opening in the first female connector, movement of the moveable protrusion allowing the end portion and body portion of the locking pin to pass through the opening in the first female connector, the free end portion of the moveable protrusion engaging the bottom surface of the slot to retain the end portion of the locking pin in the first female connector.
Further, Harvey teaches:
A similar interlocking form for use in building moldable material structures (10, Fig. 1-7) having body portions (102/102’/102’’/104/104’/104’’) connectable to one another using female connectors and locking pins (140, Fig. 6a-b), the locking pins having first ends (144), bodies (142), and lower ends (146) movable within the connectors such that the lower end may extend out of the connector in a lowered position (end 146 extends through the bottom opening 126 in the lowered position and retained via the shape of end 146 holding against the narrower opening 126, Fig. 6a), and retained within the connector in a retracted state (lower end 146 is retained within the connector in area 136 above the narrow opening 126 in the retracted position, Fig. 6b), a slot in the locking pin, the slot including a bottom surface (locking pin 140 has an elongated slot formed between 146/148 to allow protrusion 136/122 to engage the bottom surface of the body between 146/148 in the lowered state and protrusion at the top of 132 that engages the slot formed between 146/148 in the retracted position); and a moveable protrusion in the first female connector, the moveable protrusion having a ramp terminating at a free end portion of the moveable protrusion (the top end of 136 is formed as a ramp-like shape to allow movement of the pin end 146 to move into the connector space 136 with the ramp 132 engaging the bulbous bottom end 146 in the elongates slot formed in the body of the pin that effectively functions as a moveable protrusion that engages the locking pin), the ramp and free end portion extending into the opening in the first female connector, movement of the moveable protrusion allowing the end portion and body portion of the locking pin to pass through the opening in the first female connector, the free end portion of the moveable protrusion engaging the bottom surface of the slot to retain the end portion of the locking pin in the first female connector (the lower end 146 is movable from the lowered position below the opening in 122, and is moved into the retracted position by resiliently moving portion 146 through the opening in 122 into the internal cavity of the connector 136, wherein the ramp-like protrusion/edge 136 engages the bottom surface of the slot formed in the pin body between 146/148 to retain the locking pin in the retracted position, Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Dickinson to have modified the locking pins to have been cooperatively shaped with the connectors such that they extend through the connector in a lowered position to anchor the panels in place for filling the form and retained within the connector in a retracted position by an internal protruding retaining means engaging a respective slot in the locking pin as an alternative or equivalent pin retaining means known in the art as taught by Harvey (Col. 3 lines 31-50) and therefore to allow the panels to be removed without full removal of the pins therefore preventing loss of the pins when the device is not in use. Further, though Harvey doesn’t explicitly show the retaining means being specifically a movable ramp member, the retaining member of Harvey retains the pin in the connector in a functionally equivalent manner and the exact shape or design of the retaining member is merely a matter of obvious design choice and as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In Reference to Claim 7
Dickinson as modified by Harvey teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 4, wherein the retaining means further comprises: a slot in the locking pin, the slot including a bottom surface (Harvey: locking pin 140 has an elongated slot formed between 146/148 to allow protrusion 136/122 to engage the bottom surface of the body between 146/148 in the lowered state and protrusion at the top of 132 that engages the slot formed between 146/148 in the retracted position); and a moveable protrusion in the first female connector (Harvey: the top end of 136 is formed as a ramp-like shape to allow movement of the pin end 146 to move into the connector space 136 with the ramp 132 engaging the bulbous bottom end 146 in the elongates slot formed in the body of the pin that effectively functions as a moveable protrusion that engages the locking pin), the moveable protrusion having a ramp terminating at a free end portion of the moveable protrusion, the ramp and free end portion extending into the opening in the first female connector, movement of the moveable protrusion allowing the end portion and body portion of the locking pin to pass through the opening in the first female connector, the free end portion of the moveable protrusion engaging the bottom surface of the slot to retain the end portion of the locking pin in the first female connector (the lower end 146 is movable from the lowered position below the opening in 122, and is moved into the retracted position by resiliently moving portion 148 through the opening in 122 into the internal cavity of the connector 136, wherein the ramp-like protrusion/edge 136 engages the bottom surface of the slot formed in the pin body between 146/148 to retain the locking pin in the retracted position, Fig. 6B), and
the retracted state holding means further comprising a first rib positioned in the slot near the end portion of the locking pin and configured to engage the ramp of the moveable protrusion to prevent the locking pin from moving to the lowered state once in the retracted state (the opening 122 is smaller than the lower end 146, which is an extended rib-like member near the end of the slot that acts to hold the pin in the retracted state using the upper surface of the connector above the opening, Fig. 6b).
Further, though Harvey doesn’t explicitly show the retaining means being specifically a movable ramp member and a distinct first rib in the slot to engage the ramp, the retaining member of Harvey retains the pin in the connector in a functionally equivalent manner to retain the locking pin in the retracted state and therefore the exact shape or design of the retaining member is merely a matter of obvious design choice and as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In Reference to Claim 8
Dickinson teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 5 as rejected above.
Dickinson fails to teach:
Wherein the retaining means further comprises: a slot in the locking pin, the slot including a bottom surface; and a moveable protrusion in the first female connector, the moveable protrusion having a ramp terminating at a free end portion of the moveable protrusion, the ramp and free end portion extending into the opening in the first female connector, movement of the moveable protrusion allowing the end portion and body portion of the locking pin to pass through the opening in the first female connector, the free end portion of the moveable protrusion engaging the bottom surface of the slot to retain the end portion of the locking pin in the first female connector, and the lowered state holding means further comprising a second rib positioned in the slot near the top portion of the locking pin and configured to engage the free end portion of the moveable protrusion to prevent the locking pin from moving to the retracted state once in the lowered state.
Further, Harvey teaches:
A similar interlocking form for use in building moldable material structures (10, Fig. 1-7) having body portions (102/102’/102’’/104/104’/104’’) connectable to one another using female connectors and locking pins (140, Fig. 6a-b), the locking pins having first ends (144), bodies (142), and lower ends (146) movable within the connectors such that the lower end may extend out of the connector in a lowered position (end 146 extends through the bottom opening 126 in the lowered position and retained via the shape of end 146 holding against the narrower opening 126, Fig. 6a), and retained within the connector in a retracted state (lower end 146 is retained within the connector in area 136 above the narrow opening 126 in the retracted position, Fig. 6b), a slot in the locking pin, the slot including a bottom surface (locking pin 140 has an elongated slot formed between 146/148 to allow protrusion 136/122 to engage the bottom surface of the body between 146/148 in the lowered state and protrusion at the top of 132 that engages the slot formed between 146/148 in the retracted position); and a moveable protrusion in the first female connector, the moveable protrusion having a ramp terminating at a free end portion of the moveable protrusion (the top end of 136 is formed as a ramp-like shape to allow movement of the pin end 146 to move into the connector space 136 with the ramp 132 engaging the bulbous bottom end 146 in the elongates slot formed in the body of the pin that effectively functions as a moveable protrusion that engages the locking pin), the ramp and free end portion extending into the opening in the first female connector, movement of the moveable protrusion allowing the end portion and body portion of the locking pin to pass through the opening in the first female connector, the free end portion of the moveable protrusion engaging the bottom surface of the slot to retain the end portion of the locking pin in the first female connector (the lower end 146 is movable from the lowered position below the opening in 122, and is moved into the retracted position by resiliently moving portion 146 through the opening in 122 into the internal cavity of the connector 136, wherein the ramp-like protrusion/edge 136 engages the bottom surface of the slot formed in the pin body between 146/148 to retain the locking pin in the retracted position, Fig. 6B),
the lowered state holding means further comprising a second rib positioned in the slot near the top portion of the locking pin and configured to engage the free end portion of the moveable protrusion to prevent the locking pin from moving to the retracted state once in the lowered state (the top surface of elongated bottom end 146 engages a rib/surface of 122 at the lower opening 126 to hold the pin in the lowered position while flange 148 engages the ramp-like member of 132, Fig. 6a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Dickinson to have modified the locking pins to have been cooperatively shaped with the connectors such that they extend through the connector in a lowered position to anchor the panels in place for filling the form and retained within the connector in a retracted position by an internal protruding retaining means engaging a respective slot in the locking pin as an alternative or equivalent pin retaining means known in the art as taught by Harvey (Col. 3 lines 31-50) and therefore to allow the panels to be removed without full removal of the pins therefore preventing loss of the pins when the device is not in use. Further, though Harvey doesn’t explicitly show the retaining means being specifically a movable ramp member engaging a second rib in the slot, the retaining member of Harvey retains the pin in the connector in a functionally equivalent manner and the exact shape or design of the retaining member is merely a matter of obvious design choice and as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In Reference to Claim 9
Dickinson as modified by Harvey teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 7, the lowered state holding means further comprising a second rib positioned in the slot near the top portion of the locking pin and configured to engage the free end portion of the moveable protrusion to prevent the locking pin from moving to the retracted state once in the lowered state (the top surface of elongated bottom end 146 engages a rib/surface of 122 at the lower opening 126 to hold the pin in the lowered position while flange 148 engages the ramp-like member of 132, Fig. 6a).
Further, though Harvey doesn’t explicitly show the retaining means being specifically a movable ramp member engaging a second rib in the slot, the retaining member of Harvey retains the pin in the connector in a functionally equivalent manner and the exact shape or design of the retaining member is merely a matter of obvious design choice and as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In Reference to Claim 11
Dickinson teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 1 further comprising an anchor peg assembly, the anchor peg assembly including an anchor peg housing mounted to the other of the first and second surfaces of the body portion, the anchor peg housing including a slot to slidably receive an anchor peg, the anchor peg capable of extending from the slot to extend beyond a bottom of the body portion and penetrate sand to provide stability to the interlocking form, and means for retaining the anchor peg in a storage position and means for keeping the anchor peg in the slot once inserted therein (the pins 8 also double as anchoring pegs to anchor the panels to the ground surface during filling, each pin is fully movable within the female connectors to a retracted state for partial removal (placing the bottom end out of the ground surface to allow for free movement of the mold or fully removing the pins to allow for the panels to be unconnected for storage or transport, or any retracted position therebetween), further wherein pins 31 may be inserted into mid panel sections 12/28 and are capable of being used as additional anchoring means when inserted into the bottom ledge surface on the ground, Fig. 7).
Further, Harvey teaches:
A similar interlocking form for use in building moldable material structures (10, Fig. 1-7) having body portions (102/102’/102’’/104/104’/104’’) connectable to one another using female connectors and locking pins (140, Fig. 6a-b), the locking pins having first ends (144), bodies (142), and lower ends (146) movable within the connectors such that the lower end may extend out of the connector in a lowered position (end 146 extends through the bottom opening 126 in the lowered position and retained via the shape of end 146 holding against the narrower opening 126, Fig. 6a), and retained within the connector in a retracted state (lower end 146 is retained within the connector in area 136 above the narrow opening 126 in the retracted position, Fig. 6b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Dickinson to have modified the locking pins to have been positionable or duplicated to another part of the panel to have been used as anchoring pegs with retaining means therein in order to further anchor the panels in place for filling the form and retained within the connector in a retracted position as an alternative or equivalent pin retaining means known in the art as taught by Harvey (Col. 3 lines 31-50) and therefore to allow the panels to be removed without full removal of the pins therefore preventing loss of the pins when the device is not in use. Further, duplicating and relocating the pins to have been locking pins and separate anchoring pins is merely a matter of obvious design choice as it has been held that the duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8), it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70), and it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179). In this case, the integrated locking pins also having anchoring ends/means being formed into separate and distinct and locking and anchoring pin portions in different locations on the panels is an obvious variation of those taught by Dickinson.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jung US Pat. No. 10,010,804.
In Reference to Claim 10
Dickinson teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 1, wherein the other of the first and second surfaces has second protrusions extending therefrom (each side of the panels has the same respective protrusions to imprint housing features on the molded sand material therein, Fig. 1-4, page 1 line 90 – page 2 line 19).
Dickinson fails to teach:
Wherein the other of the first and second surfaces has second protrusions extending therefrom for strengthening purposes.
Further, Jung teaches:
A similar sand sculpture molding apparatus, wherein the panel surfaces may further include secondary protrusions that may provide inherent strength to the panels and imprint brick or similar aesthetic designs on the molded sand sculpture (textured protrusions 38 on the panels 30, Fig. 6-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Dickinson to have further included secondary protrusions on the panels to imprint features, such as bricks using strengthening protrusions/imprinting means on the panel surface to further improve the molding strength of the panels and to have made the walls appear to be more realistic in design as taught by Jung (Col. 7 lines 12-26).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lane US Pub. 2024/0316474.
In Reference to Claim 12
Dickinson teaches:
The interlocking form of claim 1 as rejected above.
Dickinson fails to teach:
Wherein the locking pin has a polygonal shape in cross section, preferably an octagonal shape.
Further, Lane teaches:
A similar sand sculpture molding apparatus comprising a locking pin inserted through female connecting portions of adjacent panels to releasably lock them in place for molding sand therein, the locking pin having a polygonal shape with numerous sides (locking pin 500 extending through openings in connectors 108/208/308/608 112/212/312/612 with polygonal locking end 506/632, Fig. 5-6a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Dickinson to have formed the locking pin of a polygonal shape in order to allow the pin to be more securely locked within the connectors during filling as is common and known in the art as taught by Lane ([0054]) and as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pearce GB Pat. No. 166789.
In Reference to Claim 13
Dickinson teaches:
A sand structure building kit comprising a plurality of the interlocking forms of claim 1, wherein a first set of interlocking forms each have a straight body portion and a third set of interlocking forms each have a length less than length of the interlocking form of the first set. (sets of panels 1, 2 may be grouped as a first set (a pair of panels 1) and a third set (a set of panels 1, 2) which may have different straight body portion shapes/lengths (vertical length may be varied to mimic different housing portions, Fig. 1-2)).
Dickinson fails to teach:
A second set of interlocking forms having a curved body portion.
Further, Pearce teaches:
A similar interlocking form for use in building sand structures (Fig. 1-14) having multiple connected body portions, each having female connectors for removably receiving a locking pin therein to connect adjacent panels to one another to form a connected mold form for filling with sand, the panels having different panel sizes and shapes such as straight and curved (ex. Fig. 12-13) and having different lengths (ex. Fig. 2 and 3 show two different length sides (rectangular)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Darlington to have further modified the shape of the panels to have included curves panels in addition to straight panels in order to allow the mold to take different shapes as is known and common in the art as taught by Pearce (page 3, lines 3-7, Fig. 1-14). Further, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) and it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). In this case, the exact shapes and sizes of the panel bodies is merely a matter of obvious design choice to allow a user to form the sand structures in different aesthetic shapes which would be clearly understood as obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 17
Dickinson as modified by Pearce teaches:
A method of constructing a sand structure comprising: providing the kit of providing the kit of claim 13, connecting at least some of the interlocking forms of the kit together by engaging the locking pin of selected interlocking forms of the kit with female connectors of other selected interlocking forms of the kit, the connected interlocking forms creating one or more spaces with the first or second surface having the first protrusions facing the one or more spaces; filling the one or more spaces with sand; and disconnecting the connected interlocking forms to leave a sand structure (Dickinson: the panels 1, 2 are connected via aligning female connectors at adjacent panels edges and inserting the locking pins 8 therein to lock the form for molding which is then filled with sand and then pins and panels are removed to reveal the molded sand sculpture, Fig. 1-4, page 1 line 63 - page 2 line 19).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in addition to the other claim limitations, the specific limitation of the kit containing a plurality of braces to support spaced apart interlocking forms by engaging the top portion of the locking pins via connectors, a tunnel assembly having clipped sections at a bottom of an interlocking form to simulate a castle door to form a tunnel between two interlocking forms/panels, and potentially the specific locking pin retaining structure of a pivotal/moveable ramp interacting with respective ribs in the slot of the locking pin (if proven to be more than an design choice over the cited prior art (notably claims 7-9)) are not anticipated or found obvious by the cited prior art.
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Ferring (1,639,934), Pendill (3,691,672), Isabelle (FR 2684019), McMahon (9,694,297), and Lane (10,080,979) teach similar toy sand or similar material sculpting/molding systems.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 EST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (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 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711