DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification amendment filed 3/5/26 is accepted.
35 USC § 112
For claim 3, “at least substantially identical in shape” is defined on page 10, lines 10-11 to mean that “two elements if superimposed on each other would share at least 90% of the same volume”. Also for claim 3, “generally triangular profile” is defined as “the profile has three substantially linear sides, although each side need not be perfectly linear, and each corner need not be a perfect corner” as defined by page 10, lines 16-18 of applicant’s spec.
For claim 4, “generally triangular profile” is defined on page 10, lines 16-17 to mean that “the profile has three substantially linear sides; although each side need not be perfectly linear, and each corner need not be a perfect corner”.
For claim 6, “substantially parallel” is defined on page 11, lines 21-22 to mean that “the respective sides, when represented by corresponding plane, are within 10o of each other”. For the term “at least substantially planar”, this term is defined to be “at least 75% of the recited degree or relationship” as defined in applicant’s spec, page 47 line 23 to page 48, line 4.
For claim 7, the term “about” means “a numerical value +/-10% of the value” as defined in applicant’s spec, page 11, lines 11-12.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last line of claim 16 uses the phrase “and/or”. It is unclear if the following limitation is required or an alternative. The Examiner suggests that applicant use one of “or” or “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 elongate end region is non-rotatably received and retained in the hole” of claim 29.
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.
Claim 16-18 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. Claim 16 claims that “the first manipulable connector portion includes the elongate end region” and “the second manipulable connector portion includes the elongate end region” (emphasis added). The claim language is impossible. Both connector portions cannot have the exact same “elongate end region”. One may have the “elongate end region” and another may have a shape identical to “the elongate end region”. However, they cannot be the same physical structure as the current claim reads. Claim 1 could be amended to claim “wherein the at least one additional component includes at least one elongate end region”. This would provide proper support, but would require extensive amendments in other claims as well to account for the “at least one”. The Examiner will leave it up to applicant how to best correct this error.
Claims 21 and 25 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 21 and 25 claim that the “some of the secondary pieces” have “a first joint portion” and “a second joint portion” allowing first joint to be couple to the second joint. This appears to be attempting to claim Figs. 22 and 23 of applicant’s drawings. The problem with this is that claim 21 requires all the secondary pieces to have “a bridge extending between and interconnecting the secondary-construction-piece first lobe and…second lobe” and a “connector extending away from the bridge” (see Remarks, received 3/5/26, page 19, applicant actually specifically reciting to Figs. 22 and 23 for support of the amendment to claim 21; emphasis added). In addition, in claim 23, from which claim 25 depends, the claim also requires similar language (see Remarks, received 3/5/26, page 19, applicant actually specifically reciting to Figs. 22 and 23 for support of the amendment to claim 25). However, while Fig. 22 shows this connector extending from the bridge, Fig. 23 does not (see below). As such, the claims are indefinite and possibly not enabled and/or lack written description.
PNG
media_image1.png
826
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 14-16, 19, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibuho (Korean Pub. No. 20-2014-0005566) in view of Lin et al. (herein “Lin”; US Pub. No. 2010/0297908 A1) and in further view of Maddock (US Pat. No. 5,527,201).
Regarding claim 1, Ibuho discloses a toy construction kit (Fig. 3), comprising: a plurality of primary construction pieces (Fig. 3 and Fig. 1; noting a “plurality” only requires two and nine are shown in Fig. 3, so the top two pieces), wherein each primary construction piece of the plurality of primary constructions pieces comprises a unitary body (Fig. 1 and par. [0011] of machine translation; noting it is molded from “synthetic resin”; making obvious a unitary body), and wherein the unitary body comprises: a first lobe defining a first-lobe opening to a first-lobe interior volume; a second lobe adjacent to the first lobe and defining a second-lobe opening to a second- lobe interior volume (Fig. 1; item 20 on either side); and a bridge extending between the first-lobe opening and the second-lobe opening and interconnecting the first lobe to the second lobe (Fig. 1, item 22); wherein the first-lobe interior volume of each primary construction piece of the plurality of primary constructions pieces is configured to receive and retain a second lobe of another primary construction piece via the first-lobe opening in a friction-fit arrangement (Figs. 3 and 4; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure); and wherein the second lobe-interior volume of each primary construction piece of the plurality of primary constructions pieces is configured to receive and retain a first lobe of another primary construction piece via the second-lobe opening in a friction-fit arrangement (Figs. 3 and 4; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure). It is noted that Ibuho does not specifically disclose that the unitary body is constructed of a flexible and resilient material. However, Ibuho discloses that the invention may be made from “synthetic resin” (par. [0011] of machine translation). In addition, Lin discloses an almost identical toy wherein the toy is made from flexible and resilient material (par. [0024]; noting a “mixture of plastic and rubber” would inherently be “flexible and resilient”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Ibuho to make the unitary body constructed of flexible and resilient material as taught by Lin because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a flexible and resilient material in the form of a mixture of plastic and rubber) for another (a synthetic resin) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to use a synthetic resin, the resin being a mixture of plastic and rubber that is inherently flexible and resilient). Finally, it is noted that the combined Ibuho and Lin do not specifically disclose that the bridge defines a hole extending through the bridge, at least one additional component, wherein the at least one additional component includes an elongate end region that is configured and dimensioned to be inserted through the hole of a primary construction piece to couple the additional component to the primary construction piece in a friction-fit arrangement; wherein the elongate end region is formed from at least one of a rigid material and an inelastic material. However, Ibuho specifically discloses that “the present invention can be used in combination with other types of blocks” (par. [0019] of machine translation). In addition, Maddock discloses an additional component that can be used with other blocks (col. 9, lines 4-7) wherein the bridge defines a hole extending through the bridge (Fig. 1F, item 20; noting this piece can be considered a “bridge” because it bridges two adjacent pieces with holes), at least one additional component (Fig. 8; noting Popsicle sticks), wherein the at least one additional component includes an elongate end region that is configured and dimensioned to be inserted through the hole of a primary construction piece to couple the additional component to the primary construction piece in a friction-fit arrangement (Fig. 1, Fig. 1F, and col. 7, lines 58-60; noting this is obvious); wherein the elongate end region is formed from at least one of a rigid material and an inelastic material (col. 4, lines 48-54; noting both of these are obvious for a Popsicle stick). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Ibuho and Lin to make the bridge defines a hole extending through the bridge, at least one additional component, wherein the at least one additional component includes an elongate end region that is configured and dimensioned to be inserted through the hole of a primary construction piece to couple the additional component to the primary construction piece in a friction-fit arrangement; wherein the elongate end region is formed from at least one of a rigid material and an inelastic material as taught by Maddock because doing so would be applying a known technique (using a thru hole in a bridge, the hole used to insert a rigid Popsicle connectors to connect the construction piece, allowing it to connect to another construction piece) to a known product (a construction toy that has a bridge between two holes) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (using a thru hole in a bridge, the hole used to connect the rigid construction toy piece with another toy piece, the use of the rigid Popsicle stick allowing for a wide variety of configurations of building blocks – see Maddock: col. 4, lines 46-55).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the hole is an elongate slot that extends parallel to the bridge (Maddock: Fig. 1F; noting a portion of item 20 extends parallel to the side of the bridge, but also see specifically Fig. 16FA, item 7, with a single slot that extends parallel to the sides).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the first lobe and the second lobe are at least substantially identical in shape (Ibuho: Figs. 1 and 2; noting this is obvious as they appear identical and would share 100% volume, see also Lin: par. [0024]), and further wherein the first lobe, the first-lobe interior volume, the second lobe, and the second-lobe interior volume have a generally triangular profile (Ibuho: Figs. 1 and 2; noting this is obvious based on applicant’s definition as cited to above).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that each primary construction piece of the plurality of primary construction pieces are symmetrical about the bridge (Ibuho: Figs. 1 and 2; noting this is obvious, see also Lin par. [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the first lobe comprises a first-lobe lateral side and a first-lobe medial side opposite the first-lobe lateral side; wherein the second lobe comprises a second-lobe lateral side and a second-lobe medial side opposite the second-lobe lateral side and facing the first-lobe medial side (Ibuho: Figs. 1 and 4; noting this is obvious, the lateral side being the outside of each lobe, and the medial side being the inside of each lobe); and wherein the first-lobe medial side and the second-lobe medial side are angled to each other. It is noted that the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock do not specifically disclose that the sides are at least substantially parallel and at least substantially planar. However, regarding the sides being substantially parallel and at least substantially planar, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)(see applicant’s Fig. 1 and page 11, applicant giving no criticality to the exact slope of the side of the lobes and thus the overall shape of the toy). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact shape of the toy would be insignificant: that is, the toy would still have two lobes and be stackable on another identical toy regardless of the exact slope of the sides of the lobes.
Regarding claim 8, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the first lobe comprises a first-lobe lateral side and a first-lobe medial side opposite the first-lobe lateral side; wherein the second lobe comprises a second-lobe lateral side and a second-lobe medial side opposite the second-lobe lateral side and facing the first-lobe medial side (Ibuho: Figs. 1 and 4; noting this is obvious, the lateral side being the outside, and the medial side being the inside of each lobe); wherein the unitary body has a minimum gap width between the first-lobe medial side and the second-lobe medial side (Ibuho: Fig. 4; noting the gap at the bottom of the valley is the “minimum gap width”); wherein the unitary body has a maximum lobe width between the first-lobe lateral side and the first-lobe medial side and between the second-lobe lateral side and the second-lobe medial side (Ibuho: Fig. 4; noting this is the side from the outside/lateral side to inside/medial side at the same elevation of valley, i.e. the maximum value of the lobe width); and wherein the minimum gap width is less than the maximum lobe width (Ibuho: Fig. 4; noting this is completely obvious), and wherein the elongate end region of the at least one additional component has a thickness that is about a minimum cross-sectional dimension of the hole (Maddock: Fig. 16C and Fig. 16H and col. 7, lines 57-60; noting this is obvious).
PNG
media_image2.png
740
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the at least one additional component includes a plurality of basic elongate connectors (Maddock: Fig. 1, item 8; noting plurality means at least two and six are shown), wherein each basic elongate connector of the plurality of basic elongate connectors comprises opposing elongate end regions (Maddock: Fig. 1, item 8; noting this is obvious or inherent), and wherein each elongate end region is configured to be selectively inserted into and retained within the hole in a friction-fit arrangement (Maddock, Fig. 1, item 8 , see also Figs. 16C, 16H, 28, and col. 7, lines 57-60; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 15, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the at least one additional component includes a plurality of detail connector pieces (Maddock: Fig. 1, item 8; noting plurality means at least two and six are shown), wherein each detail connector piece of the plurality of detail connector pieces comprises a detail-connector-piece detailed end region opposite the end region (Maddock, Fig. 1, item 8; noting this obvious or inherent and may simple be the other end that is not inserted, the claim defining no actual required structure) and a detail-connector-piece connecting end region opposite the detail-connector-piece detailed end region (Zheng: Fig. 18C; noting the ends are inherent). It is noted that the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock do not specifically disclose that the detail-connector-piece detailed end region comprises an attribute of a character. However, as no specific structure is claimed, the Examiner broadly construes that the “attribute of a character” can be printed matter (i.e. printed matter on the substrate of the end of a Popsicle stick). In addition, regarding the use of printed matter in the form of a “attribute of a character’, it has been held that no patentable weight is given to printed matter absent a unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, printed “attributes of a character” would have not functional relationship with the substrate of the Popsicle stick, and it would rather be pure ornamentation. As such, the printed matter would not be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the at least one additional component includes a first manipulable connector portion and a second manipulable connector portion that collectively form a at least one manipulable connector (Maddock: Fig. 17C), wherein the first manipulable connector portion with a first manipulable connector includes the elongate end region and a first-manipulable-connector joint end region opposite the elongate end region of the first manipulable connector portion (Maddock: Fig. 17C below; noting the right side, item 22 being the elongate connector); wherein the second manipulable connector portion includes a connector end region and a second-manipulable-connector joint end region opposite the connector end region of the second manipulable connector portion (Maddock: Fig. 17C, below); wherein the first-manipulable-connector joint end region and the second-manipulable-connector joint end region are configured to be selectively coupled together to define a manipulable joint in which the first manipulable connector portion and the second manipulable connector portion are configured to be selectively pivoted and/or rotated relative to reach other (Maddock: Fig. 17C below and col. 6, lines 57-59). It is noted that the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock do not specifically disclose that the second manipulable connector portion has an elongate end region. However, Maddock discloses that the first manipulable connection portion has an elongate end region (Fig. 17C below). In addition, regarding using an elongate end region on the second manipulable connector portion, it has been held that the duplication of parts is not given patentable weight unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that using an elongate end region on the second manipulable connector portion would not produce new and unexpected results: that is, second manipulable connector portion would fit/insert into a slot much like the first manipulable connector portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
280
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose a plurality of secondary construction pieces (Ibuho: Fig. 3; noting a "plurality" only requires two, and nine are shown, so the bottom two pieces), wherein each secondary construction piece of the plurality of secondary constructions pieces comprises a second construction piece body that comprises: a secondary-construction-piece first lobe; a secondary-construction-piece second lobe adjacent to the secondary-construction-piece first lobe; a secondary-construction-piece bridge extending between and interconnecting the secondary-construction-piece first lobe and the secondary-construction-piece second lobe (Ibuho: Fig. 1; noting this is obvious); and a secondary-construction-piece connector extending away from the secondary-construction-piece opposite the secondary-construction-piece first lobe and the secondary-construction-piece second lobe (Ibuho: Fig. 1 and Maddock: Fig. 1 and rationale of the rejection of claim 1 above; noting Maddock makes obvious the ability to use a hole in the bridge and place a connector in that hole, see Maddock: Fig. 1, 16C, 16H, and 28, so a connector connected to the hole and extending away from the bridge is an obvious combination given the combined structure); wherein the first-lobe interior volume of each primary construction piece of the plurality of primary construction pieces is configured to receive and retain the secondary-construction-piece first lobe or the secondary-construction-piece second lobe via the first-lobe opening in a friction-fit arrangement (Ibuho: Fig. 3 and 4; noting this is obvious); wherein the second lobe-interior volume of each primary construction piece of the plurality of primary construction pieces is configured to receive and retain the secondary-construction-piece first lobe or the secondary-construction-piece second lobe via the second-lobe opening in a friction-fit arrangement (Ibuho: Fig. 3 and 4; noting this is obvious). It is noted that the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock do not specifically disclose that the second construction piece is unitary (i.e. one integral piece that is monolithic in nature). However, in a different embodiment, Maddock makes obvious a construction piece that has a hole and a connection piece and is unitary or monolithic in nature (Fig. 16F, item 7 being the hole, and item 19 being the connector, see also Fig. 11B). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the secondary construction piece unitary as taught by Maddock because doing so would be combining prior art elements (making a connecting piece unitary and making a connection piece from two elements) according to known methods (making the connection piece unitary) to yield predictable results (making the connection piece unitary, the connection piece have both holes and an elongate connector).
Regarding clams 21 and 25, the claims are rejected based on claim 19 above. In addition, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the secondary-construction-piece connector of some of the secondary construction pieces comprises a secondary-construction-piece first joint portion (Maddock: Figs. 1 and 16H, noting this “joint” can be the slot, item 7 or Fig. 17E, item 23, the Examiner not importing any limitation from the specification into what is considered a “joint”), wherein the secondary-construction-piece connector of some of the secondary construction pieces comprises a secondary-construction-piece second joint portion (Maddock: Figs. 1 and 16H, noting this “joint” can be the elongated portion, item 19 or Fig. 17C, item 22, the Examiner not importing any limitation from the specification into what is considered a “joint”), and wherein the secondary- construction-piece first joint portion is configured to be selectively coupled to the secondary-construction-piece second joint portion (Maddock: Fig. 17E; also noting this is functionally possible given the structure).
Regarding claim 22, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose a method of constructing a three-dimensional sculpture from the toy construction kit of claim 1, the method comprising: inserting the first lobe of a first primary construction piece into the second-lobe interior volume of a second primary construction piece; inserting the second lobe of a third primary construction piece into the first-lobe interior volume of the second primary construction piece; and repeating the inserting and the inserting with respect to additional primary construction pieces to at least partially construct the three-dimensional sculpture (Ibuho: Fig. 4 and 3; noting this is obvious, see also Ibuho: par. [0018] of machine translation specifically “arbitrarily assembled” making obvious reversal of connection of the specific depiction in Fig. 3), inserting the elongate end region of the additional component through the hole of one of the first primary construction piece or one of the additional primary construction pieces to couple the additional component to the respective primary construction piece in a friction-fit arrangement (Maddock: Fig. 28, clearly showing the Popsicle stick inserted into two ends of different construction pieces). The Examiner also notes that assembly of two adjoining pieces wherein one lobe is inserted into another lobe so that both lobes of each piece are connected to each other is only possible in two orientations. Ibuho: Fig. 9 shows one orientation wherein they are all stacked in the same orientation. However, to assemble adjoining pieces in reverse orientation would simply be obvious to try choosing the finite number of possible combinations: only two.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected based on claim 1 and 19 as recited above.
Regarding claim 24, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the secondary-construction-piece connector of at least some of the plurality secondary construction pieces includes an elongate end region that is formed from at least one of a rigid material and an inelastic material (Maddock: col. 4, lines 48-54; noting both of these are obvious for a Popsicle stick, or Maddock: Fig. 18B, item 19; noting the rigidity of the extension obvious based on the material used for the Popsicle stick).
Regarding claim 26, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the elongate end region is dimensioned to have a transverse dimension that is at least one of the same size as the hole and slightly larger than the hole (Maddock: Figs. 1, 16C, 16H, and 28; noting same size or slightly bigger is obvious as “frictional fit” is obvious per col. 7, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 27, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the elongate end region is dimensioned to have a transverse dimension that is larger than the hole, and wherein the unitary body of the primary construction piece is configured to resiliently deform when the elongate end region is inserted into the hole to facilitate the friction-fit arrangement (Maddock: Figs. 1, 16C, 16H, and 28; noting “larger” is obvious as “frictional fit” is obvious per col. 7, lines 57-60). In the alternative, Lin specifically disclose the use of a material for the building block that would inherently be “flexible and resilient” (par. [0024]; noting a “mixture of plastic and rubber” would inherently be “flexible and resilient”). Maddock discloses the use of a connector that is inherently inelastic and rigid (col. 4, lines 48-54; noting both of these are obvious for a Popsicle stick) and also discloses ensuring that a proper sliding friction fit is created between the block and the connector (co.7, lines 57-60). Looking a the combination, a POSA would understand that making the connector (Popsicle stick) slightly larger and allowing the block to resiliently deform upon insertion (based on the disclosed inherent materials used to create the two) would create the desired friction fit that would allow for the Popsicle stick to be both insertable into the building block, but also allow it to retain its relative position within the building block when assembled; completely consistent with the Maddock disclosure.
Regarding claim 28, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the elongate end region is at least one of less resilient and less flexible than the plurality of primary construction pieces (Lin: par. [0024]; noting a “mixture of plastic and rubber” would inherently be “flexible and resilient” for the building block/construction piece, and Maddock: col. 4, lines 48-54; noting inelastic and rigid is obvious for a Popsicle stick; so the limitation is obvious given the combination and their disclosed materials).
Regarding claim 29, the combined Ibuho, Lin, and Maddock disclose that the hole and the elongate end region are configured such that the elongate end region is non-rotatably received and retained in the hole (Maddock: Figs. 16A; disclosing a single slot, making obvious the limitation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim 17, the prior art of record does not make obvious or show that the manipulable joint defines a plurality of pre-defined discrete positions for the second manipulable connector relative to the first manipulable connector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the onset, the Examiner appreciates applicant specifically providing support for all the claim amendments and the specification amendments. The specification amendment is entered based on this clarity.
112 Rejections
All previous 112 rejections have been overcome. However, new 112(b) rejections are present based on newly presented language.
103 Rejection
The majority of the arguments under the 103 section are directed toward Zheng. The Zheng reference has been replaced by Maddock. As such, all arguments directed at Zheng are considered moot.
Regarding claims 14-18, the Examiner notes on the record that he does not import any structure from the drawings into the interpretation of the claims; but rather takes the broadest reasonable interpretation based on the plain claim language.
For claims 19, 21, 23, the Examiner understands applicant’s argument concerning a “unitary construction”. However, the Examiner’s rebuttal is that Maddock clearly discloses construction pieces with both holes and external elongated connectors made from a unitary construction. As such, making the claimed construction piece (i.e. a two piece construction) unitary would have been obvious to and well within the skill of a POSA.
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 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
3/19/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711