DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2, line 2 has an extra “as” in the sentence that should be removed. See claim 2 rejection below for its location. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haviland (US Pat. No. 2,855,206) in view of Schmeizer et al. (herein “Schmeizer”; US Pub. No. 2007/0006502 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haviland discloses an assembly toy (Fig. 1; noting “toy” is simply intended use and any object can be utilized as a toy) comprising: a building element having an aperture (see Fig. 1 below); and at least one coupling element comprising: a first coupler including a first mid-flange having a first side with a coupling portion extending therefrom (Fig. 1 below; noting “flange” can simply be “a flat surface sticking out from an object” as defined by dictionary.cambridge/org) and a second side with at least one protrusion extending away from the first mid-flange (Fig. 1 below); a second coupler including a second mid- flange having at least one opening (Fig. 1 below), the second mid-flange having a first side with a coupling portion extending therefrom and a second side (Fig. 1 below); and a decorative element disposed between the second sides of the first and second couplers (Fig. 1 below, item 24), the decorative element including at least one hole therethrough (Fig. 1 below; noting this is obvious); wherein the at least one protrusion of the first coupler extends through the at least one hole of the decorative element and into the at least one opening of the second coupler such that the decorative element remains captured between the first coupler and the second coupler (Fig. 1 below; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure), wherein the coupling portion of the first or second coupler is adapted to engage the aperture to releasably connect the coupling element with the building element (Fig. 1 below; noting this is functionally possible given the structure), wherein the second coupler includes a sleeve aligned with the at least one opening and which extends away from the second side of the mid-flange of the second coupler, wherein the sleeve receives at least a portion of the protrusion (Fig. 1 below, noting item 25 of the second coupler; noting this can be considered a "sleeve" because it is round in nature; noting "sleeve" as defined by merriam-webster.com is "a tubular part") and that the sleeve supports the decorative member between the second sides of the mid-flanges of the first and second couplers (Fig. 1 below; also noting this is functional language that is possible given the structure). The above rejection is given under a 103 because the Examiner utilizes the connector in Fig. 6 in conjunction with the connectors shown in Fig. 1 (as annotated below). The ability to use Fig. 6 in connection with Fig. 1 is not only functionally possible, it is an obvious and predictable solution to a POSA based on the specific disclosure of Haviland. That is, Haviland specifically discloses that Fig. 6 can be used to connect to cavity 35 as seen in annotated Fig. 1 below (col. 5, lines 19-27). It is noted that Haviland does not specifically disclose that the sleeve passes through the decorative member. However, Schmeizer discloses a similar coupler wherein the second coupler includes a sleeve that passes through the decorative member (Fig. 2C; item 110 being the “decorative member). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify Haviland to make the sleeve passes through the decorative member as taught by Schmeizer because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a connector through a material having a sleeve and a connector through a material that uses a sleeve that passes into the hole in the decorative material) according to known methods (use of the sleeve into the former connector) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a connector through a material with a corresponding sleeve, the connector having a sleeve positioned within the hole of the material, the sleeve “providing additional lateral stability” within the hole – see Schmeizer: par. [0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combined Haviland and Schmeizer disclose that the coupling portion on the first coupler has a shape that is the same as a shape of [[as]] the coupling portion on the second coupler (Haviland: Fig. 1 above; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Haviland and Schmeizer disclose that the building element comprises a first building element and a second building element (Havliand: Fig. 1 above), wherein the coupling portion on the first coupler is adapted to engage with and releasably connect with the first building element (Haviland: Fig. 1; noting this is functionally possible given the structure; albeit not shown in annotated Fig. 1 above; the italicized language denoting functional language), wherein the coupling portion of the second coupler is adapted to engage with and releasably connect with the second building element (Haviland: Fig. 1 above; noting this is specifically shown), and wherein the first and second building elements are releasably connected with one another (Haviland: Fig. 1 above; noting this is functionally possible given the structure; noting they would be releasable connected with one another via the first and second coupling).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Haviland and Schmeizer disclose that a plurality of building elements, wherein the at least one coupling element joins two of the building elements, wherein the decorative element is positioned between the building elements and extends outward of the building elements (Haviland: Fig. 1 above; again noting that this is functionally possible as the 1st Building Element in Fig. 1 above may functionally be attached to the “first coupler”).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Haviland and Schmeizer disclose one or more second coupling elements, the second coupling elements each comprising: a third coupler including a third mid-flange having a first side with a coupling portion extending therefrom and a second side with at least one protrusion extending away from the body; and a fourth coupler including a fourth mid-flange having at least one opening, the fourth mid-flange having a first side with a coupling portion extending therefrom and a second side (Haviland: see Fig. 1 above; noting this is an obvious mere duplication of the coupler parts as annotated in Fig. 1 above because applicant is simply claiming a duplicate coupler, see Fig. 12 making obvious the ability to use a vast number of couplers), wherein the plurality of building elements are joined together with the first and second coupling elements to form a toy (Haviland: Fig. 1; noting this is obvious given Fig. 1, a duplication of parts, and the functionally ability in Fig. 1 for the coupler to combine multiple building elements).
Regarding claim 14, Haviland discloses a coupling for a toy (Fig. 1; noting “toy” is simply intended use and any object can be utilized as a toy) comprising: a first coupler including a mid-flange having a first side with a coupling portion extending therefrom and a second side with at least one protrusion extending away from the mid-flange (see Fig. 1 above); and a second coupler including a mid-flange, the mid-flange having a first side with a coupling portion extending therefrom and a second side having at least one opening; wherein the at least one protrusion of the first coupler extends into the at least one opening of the second coupler such that the first and second coupler are coupled together (see Fig. 1 above, and rejection of claim 1 for explicit analysis), wherein the second coupler includes a sleeve aligned with the at least one opening and which extends away from the second side of the mid-flange of the second coupler, wherein the sleeve receives at least a portion of the protrusion (Fig. 1 below, noting item 25 of the second coupler; noting this can be considered a "sleeve" because it is round in nature; noting "sleeve" as defined by merriam-webster.com is "a tubular part") and that the sleeve supports the decorative member between the second sides of the mid-flanges of the first and second couplers (Fig. 1 below; noting this is functional language that is possible given the structure). The above rejection is given under a 103 because the Examiner utilizes the connector in Fig. 6 in conjunction with the connectors shown in Fig. 1 (as annotated below). The ability to use Fig. 6 in connection with Fig. 1 is not only functionally possible, it is an obvious and predictable solution to a POSA based on the specific disclosure of Haviland. That is, Haviland specifically discloses that Fig. 6 can be used to connect to cavity 35 as seen in Fig. 1 (col. 5, lines 19-27). It is noted that Haviland does not specifically disclose that the sleeve passes through the decorative member. However, Schmeizer discloses a similar coupler wherein the second coupler includes a sleeve that passes through the decorative member (Fig. 2C; item 110 being the “decorative member). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify Haviland to make the sleeve passes through the decorative member as taught by Schmeizer because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a connector through a material having a sleeve and a connector through a material that uses a sleeve that passes into the hole in the decorative material) according to known methods (use of the sleeve into the former connector) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a connector through a material with a corresponding sleeve, the connector having a sleeve positioned within the hole of the material, the sleeve “providing additional lateral stability” within the hole – see Schmeizer: par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined Haviland and Schmeizer disclose a decorative element, including at least one hole therethrough, wherein the at least one protrusion of the first coupler extends through the at least one hole of the decorative element and into the at least one opening of the second coupler such that the decorative element is captured between the first coupler and second coupler (Haviland: Fig. 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above for explicit analysis).
Regarding claim 16, the combined Haviland and Schmeizer disclose that the coupling portion on the first coupler has a shape that is the same as a shape of the coupling portion on the second coupler (Haviland: Fig. 1 above; noting this is obvious).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haviland (US Pat. No. 2,855,206) in view of Schmeizer et al. (herein “Schmeizer”; US Pub. No. 2007/0006502 A1) and in further view of Labelle (US Pat. No. 4,547,160).
Regarding claim 7, the combined Haviland and Schmeizer disclose that the toy forms an animal or a vehicle (Haviland: Fig. 12; noting the ability to connect the pieces to create a shape is functionally possible; for example, Fig. 12 may represent a “snake”; an animal). In the alternative, Haviland uses a coupler to connect apertures of adjacent pieces (Fig. 1 above). Labelle discloses a construction toy wherein adjacent pieces having apertures are connected, the connected pieces creating an animal or vehicle shape (Figs. 4 or 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Haviland and Schmeizer to connect pieces to create an animal or vehicle as taught by Labelle because doing so would be applying a known technique (using a coupler that can retain a decorative element, the coupler attaching apertures of adjacent pieces) to a known product (a construction set that uses apertures to attach) to yield predictable results (the ability to connect adjacent construction pieces using a coupler to create an animal or vehicle, the coupler allowing for a decorative piece to be attached via a thru hole).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that the combined Haviland, Schmeizer, and Labelle do not specifically discloses the animal is a lion, wherein the decorative element forms a mane of the lion. However, Labelle discloses that the assembled object may be an animal (Fig. 4). Furthermore, Haviland discloses a “decorative element” that may be subjectively construed as a “mane’ (Fig. 1, item 24; i.e. the combination appears to make the limitation functionally possible and also what connotes a “lion” is completely subjective). Finally, regarding the exact animal produced by the assembled pieces, 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. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)(noting first, the entire depiction of a “lion” is merely ornamentation, and second, the actually “decorative element” is, by claim name, purely ornamentation; i.e. “decorative” denotes aesthetics only and applicant is trying to denote structure to an item that is, by their own naming, pure ornamentation). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact animal produced by the construction would be pure ornamentation; or alternatively, that the assembled animal would have been functionally possible given the combined prior art structure.
Regarding claim 9, the combined Haviland, Schmeizer, and Labelle disclose that the vehicle is a truck, a train, a tractor, a sailboat, an airplane, or a car (Labelle: Fig. 5; noting a car). The examiner also notes that, again, the exact structure created by the construction set is directed toward ornamentation, and is completely subjective to a user. Finally, the Examiner notes that a child may construe Haviland: Fig. 12 to be a train (noting applicant does not claim anywhere a required actual structure to denote any of the above claimed vehicles).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not generally persuasive.
112 Rejection
The previous 112 rejections have been overcome by way of amendment.
103 Rejection
On page 7, applicant argues that:
Firstly, the Haviland does not have a sleeve that "extends away from the second side of the mid- flange of the second coupler". The "sleeve" of Haviland is really just part of the thickness of the flange of the second coupler of Haviland.
Respectfully submitted, the Examiner does not agree. The Examiner does not import limitations into what structure is required for the “mid-flange” and has annotated Haviland: Fig. 1 accordingly (actually, the Examiner gives a plain definition for the term “flange” which even further supports his position). As seen in annotated Fig. 1 above, what the Examiner is calling the “sleeve’ (item 25) extends away from what the Examiner calls the “mid-flange”. If there is some structural distinction to the mid-flange, this structure should probably be claimed to lend credence to applicant’s argument.
Applicant next argues that “the sleeve passes through the decorative”. This deficiency has been cured by Schmeizer. Next, applicant argues that the structure shown in Haviland “cannot support the decorative member between the second sides of the mid-flanges of the first and second coupler”. The Examiner fails to understand this argument. In Haviland: Fig. 1 above, the “sleeve” (item 25) is directly in contact with the decorative member (item 24) and thus supports the decorative member between “the second sides of the mid-flanges of the first and second coupler” (noting the “second sides” are clearly denoted in Fig. 1 above). Maybe applicant’s argument is that the “sleeve” cannot support the member from inside the hole? However, the “sleeve” in Haviland directly supports the decorative member in Fig. 1 above because it is in direct contact with it.
No other arguments are made.
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
6/1/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights