DETAILED ACTION
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poulus et al. (herein “Poulus”; US Pub. No. 2016/0354705 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Poulus discloses a creation table for fusible toy bead (Fig. 1 and abstract), comprising: a first table having a plurality of through holes (Fig. 12), the first table being configured to allow a fusible toy bead to be placed on a first direction side of the plurality of through holes (Figs. 2 and 120; also noting this is functionally possible given the structure); and a second table comprising a plurality of pins (Fig. 2, item 110 below), the plurality of pins being allowed to be inserted into and removed from a second direction side of the plurality of through holes, respectively, the second direction side being opposite to the first direction side (Fig. 2 below), wherein the creation table is arranged such that in a first state the first table is maintained spaced apart from the second table such that the plurality of pins are removed from the plurality of through holes (Fig. 2; noting this is clearly seen and thus functionally possible, and noting “maintained spaced apart” can simply mean that it is held above by the user; i.e. this is functionally possible given the structure and the specific spacing as shown in Fig. 2 below; or alternatively, table 102 can functionally be placed on a surface adjacent/next to item 110), and wherein in a second state the first table approaches the second table such that the plurality of pins are inserted into the plurality of through holes (Fig. 1; again noting this is functionally possible given the structure as explicitly seen in Fig. 1).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Poulus discloses a guide part configured to guide the first table and the second table such that the first table and the second table are allowed to approach and separate from each other (Fig. 2 above).
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:
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Poulus et al. (herein “Poulus”; US Pub. No. 2016/0354705 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Poulus discloses that the guide part comprises: a guide hole provided in the first table (Fig. 2 above); and a guide plate provided in the second table, the guide plate comprising an engagement protrusion (Fig. 2 above, noting the entire guide plate is a protrusion) configured to be engaged with an edge portion of the guide hole when inserted into the guide hole (Fig. 2 above, see also Fig. 1). It is noted that Poulus does not specifically disclose that the guide plate is a guide plate spring. However, for purposes of examination, the Examiner will construe “spring” to mean that the guide plate is elastic, resilient or flexible (see applicant’s spec, par. [0015] stating it has a “spring property”). In addition, Poulus discloses that at least the first table (aka the template) can be made from a flexible material in order to increase engagement and removal from the second table (aka the tray) (par. [0054]). Furthermore, Poulus also discloses that the first table (aka the template) can be rigid to facilitate the removal of beads (par. [0054]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Poulus to make the second table, including the guide plate, flexible as taught and suggested by Poulus because doing so would allow the second plate (aka the tray) to facilitate engagement and removal with a rigid first plate (aka the template) while still allowing the first plate (aka the template) to be rigid enough to easily remove the beads.
Regarding claim 4, Poulus discloses that the second table comprises a wall portion (Fig. 2 above), the wall portion being positioned on an outer periphery of the first table when the plurality of pins are inserted into the plurality of through holes (Fig. 1; noting this is obvious), and wherein the wall portion comprises a regulating plate, the regulating plate comprising a regulating protrusion (Fig. 2 above), the regulating protrusion being configured to come into contact with a step portion provided on an outer peripheral edge portion of the first table when the plurality of pins are inserted into the plurality of through holes (Fig. 2 above, also see Fig. 1). It is noted that Poulus does not specifically disclose that the regulating plate is a regulating plate spring. However, for purposes of examination, the Examiner will construe “spring” to mean that the regulating plate is elastic, resilient or flexible (see applicant’s spec, par. [0015] stating generally that it has a “spring property”). In addition, Poulus discloses that at least the first table (aka the template) can be made from a flexible material in order to increase engagement and removal from the second table (aka the tray) (par. [0054]). Furthermore, Poulus also discloses that the first table (aka the template) can be rigid to facilitate the removal of beads (par. [0054]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Poulus to make the second table, including the regulating plate, flexible as taught and suggested by Poulus because doing so would allow the second plate (aka the tray) to facilitate engagement and removal with a rigid first plate (aka the template) while still allowing the first plate (aka the template) to be rigid enough to easily remove the beads.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Poulus et al. (herein “Poulus”; US Pub. No. 2016/0354705 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Sakai (US Pub. No. 2018/033653 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Poulus does not specifically disclose that each of the plurality of through holes comprises: an inner peripheral surface; a plurality of columnar portions provided on the first direction side of the through hole, each of the columnar portions comprising a surface continuous with the inner peripheral surface; and a groove portion formed between adjacent columnar portions of the plurality of columnar portions. However, Poulus discloses a first plate comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 2, item 120 above). In addition, Sakai discloses a similar table for fusible beads wherein each of the plurality of through holes comprises: an inner peripheral surface (Figs. 4A-4C, item 25; noting this is inherent); a plurality of columnar portions provided on the first direction side of the through hole (Fig. 4C, noting the columns that produces tapered surfaces 25a), each of the columnar portions comprising a surface continuous with the inner peripheral surface (Fig. 4C, noting this obvious); and a groove portion formed between adjacent columnar portions of the plurality of columnar portions (Figs. 4A-4C, item 27). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Poulus to use the above structure for the first plate plurality of holes s taught by Sakai because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a first table for fusible beads having a plurality of through holes with the above structure) for another (a first table for fusible beads having a plurality of through holes) to obtain predicable results (the continued ability to use a first table having a plurality of through holes, the through holes having the above structure to improve the drainage of water from the first table – see Sakai: par. [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the new claim language is very general and vague. In fact, applicant never really dives in to the specifics of the claim amendments and the distinction it creates over the prior art.
For the record, first off, the Examiner does not impart or import any structure from the specification into claims to create the newly added functional language of claim 1. That is, the amended language can be accomplished manually (i.e. by the user) because template 120 is specifically intended to be removable from lower table 110. Second, the Examiner can only assume (based on the lack of explicit arguments) that applicant is claiming the states as seen in Fig. 4 vs. Fig. 5 (see Remarks, page 4, applicant cited to support for the amendments). However, and once again, the Examiner does not impart or import any structure necessary to accomplish the functional language. As such, the claim amendments do not overcome the prior art.
No other arguments are advanced.
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 Matthew Stanczak whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 8:30 to 3:30 EST.
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
2/2/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711