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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (herein “Lee”; US Pub. No. 2013/0000089 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a toy comprising a platform (Fig. 23(b), item 610 or Fig. 14, item 100) defined by at least a surface (Fig. 23(b), item 610), a first channel, and a second channel, each of the first channel and the second channel formed by a first protrusion extending from the surface (Fig. 23(b) below), a second protrusion extending from the surface (Fig. 23(b) below), wherein optionally the first protrusion or the second protrusion of the first channel corresponds to the one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion of the second channel (Fig. 23(b) below; noting this is “optional” and is not required, but the below figure clearly shows it), a flexible member having a thickness such that the flexible member is releasably securable along at least a partial length thereof within the first channel or the second channel such that at least a portion of the flexible member is curvilinear (Figs. 24 and 25, item 623a being the “member” which shows a curved outer, lower edge meeting the “curvilinear” requirement, and par. [0104]; noting an object that is “elastic” would inherently be “flexible”; noting dictionary.com specifically defines “elastic” as “flexible”).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses that the first channel and the second channel are parallel (Fig. 23(b) above).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses a toy comprising a platform (Fig. 23(b), item 610 or Fig. 14, item 100) defined by at least a surface (Fig. 23(b), item 610)), and a first channel formed by a first protrusion (Fig. 23b above; noting the first protrusion for the first channel), a member having a thickness (Fig. 24; noting a thickness is inherent) such that the member is releasably securable along at least a partial length thereof within the first channel (Figs. 24 and 25, item 623a being the “member”, par. [0035] stating that it is attachable and removable) such that at least a portion of the member is curvilinear (Figs. 24 and 25, item 623a being the “member” which shows a curved outer, lower edge meeting the “curvilinear” requirement).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses that the surface is planar (Fig. 23(b) above, item 610 and pars. [0198]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses further comprising a second channel, wherein the first channel and the second channel are parallel (Fig. 23(b) above).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses that the member is slender and deformable (Fig. 24, item 623a and par. [0104]; noting as per Fig. 24, the actual width of the of the member 623a is small compared to its length, meeting the term “slender”, and as per par. [0104], a material that is “elastic” is both “flexible” and “deformable”).
Regarding claim 25, Lee discloses that the member is discrete (Fig. 24, item 623a being the member; noting the plain meaning of the word “discrete” is “apart from others” or “distinct”, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, item 623a is separate and distinct from the adjacent member item 623a; even if attached via a common base plate).
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 5, 22,and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (herein “Lee”; US Pub. No. 2013/0000089 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses a rigid back plate having a platform disposed the platform disposed thereon (Fig. 29(b), item 810 and par. [00235]; noting this is obvious, while Lee does not specifically disclose that the “base plate” is “rigid”, it would be obvious to a POSA because the base plate would need to support the “platform” onto which puzzle pieces are attached, see also Fig. 34, 38, 39; also making obvious “rigid” base or backing plates). The Examiner also notes that this is a different embodiment. However, the Court in Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) found that combining two embodiments in the same disclosure does not “require a leap of inventiveness”. Thus, the combination of two embodiments within a single prior art is obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses that the surface and the first protrusion are elastically deformable (see Fig. 23(b) and pars. [0195]-[0201]; noting this would be obvious to a POSA; that is, Lee specifically discloses that the rails/protrusion are “elastic”, Fig. 23(b) shows that the rails/protrusion are continuous/integral with the base plate, in fact, par. [0200] specifically states that the rails/protrusion and base are “integrally formed”; as such, a POSA would understand that the protrusions and the surface are made from the same elastic material; see also par. [0224] essentially stating that the rail and plate can be made from the same material).
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses that the surface and the first protrusion comprise a flexible material (see Fig. 23(b) and pars. [0195]-[0201]; noting this would be obvious to a POSA; that is, Lee specifically discloses that the rails/protrusion are “elastic”, Fig. 23(b) shows that the rails/protrusion are continuous/integral with the base plate, in fact, par. [0200] specifically states that the rails/protrusion and base are “integrally formed”; as such, a POSA would understand that the protrusions and the surface are made from the same elastic material; again noting if something is “elastic”, it is by definition “flexible”; see also par. [0224] essentially stating that the rail and plate can be made from the same material).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (herein “Lee”; US Pub. No. 2013/0000089 A1) in view of Arboleda (US Pub. No. 2017/0232354 A1).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that Lee does not specifically disclose the platform includes an interconnect configured to connect with a further platform of a further toy. However, Lee discloses a platform (Fig. 29(b), item 810). In addition, Arboleda discloses a platform that includes an interconnect configured to connect it to another platform (Fig. 5, item 46 and par. [0040]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lee to make the platform include an interconnect configured to connect it with another platform as taught by Arboleda because doing so would be use of a known technique (using an interconnect on a platform) to improve a similar product (a platform for a display) in the same way (using an interconnect on a platform for display, the interconnect creating the ability to connect multiple platforms to further create “a singular display”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (herein “Lee”; US Pub. No. 2013/0000089 A1) in view of/as evidenced by Cochella et al. (herein “Cochella”; US Pub. No. 2018/0021689 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses that the flexible material is a synthetic resin (par. [0224]; specifically stating it can be “polypropylene (PP)”). It is noted that Lee does not specifically disclose that the flexible material is silicone. However, regarding using silicone as the material, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)(see applicant’s spec, par. [0060], applicant giving no criticality to the use of silicone; see also as evidence, Cochella, par. [0064], specifically stating that “silicone” is a known substitute for PP). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary person skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lee to make the material silicone as taught and evidenced by Cochella because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (silicone) for another (PP) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to use a flexible material, the specific material being silicone; a known substitute for PP).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
102 Rejection
The crux of the argument appears to center around what it means to be “curvilinear”. “Curvilinear” is defined by www.merriam-wester.com to mean “represented by a curved line”.
Along these lines, applicant argues that “Rather, claim 1 recites that the flexible member has a thickness such that the flexible member is "releasably securable within the [channel] such that at least a portion of the flexible member is curvilinear" (see Remarks, received 4/8/26, page 6; emphasis added by Examiner). Applicant then argues that “This language does not limit the flexible member to having a curvilinear edge, but rather indicates an aspect of the flexible member that requires the flexible member's releasable securing within the channel for its realization” (Remarks, page 6). Applicant argues further that the language “requires the channel to such that a portion of the flexible member is curvilinear when installed therein” (Remarks, page 6; emphasis added).
Respectfully submitted, the Examiner would argue that, per the claim language, claim 1 requires the language “releasably secured”, so it is unclear if the member is “curvilinear” when “released”, or when “secured”, or both. Applicant argues that the “curvilinear” applies only when it is “secured” within the channel. The Examiner would argue that “curvilinear” could apply to either: released or secured, or even both. Nonetheless, Lee specifically shows both: released and secured. That is, Lee shows the curvilinear shape when it is released (as shown in Lee: Fig. 23b below; noting upper piece in Fig. 24 having “members” is the same protrusion/channel configuration as the lower piece seen in Fig. 23b/24) and when it is secured (as shown in Lee: Fig. 24; noting this is actually the only configuration that applicant is arguing must occur). The Examiner has annotated the figures below.
PNG
media_image2.png
454
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Add on top of that applicant actually claims “a least a portion of the flexible member is curvilinear” (emphasis added), and the claim language is even broader and clearly met by Lee. Restated, “only a portion” of the flexible member needs to be “curvilinear”.
Applicant goes on to argue that “Lee does no discloses such a channel” (emphasis added). Again, as specifically reiterated by applicant, the language “curvilinear” as it pertains to the member, does not impart or import any structure into the structure of the channel (see Remark, page 6; other than that it can possibly allow the member to be curvilinear when inserted when is clearly shown in Lee: Fig. 24 above; assuming the exact claim interpretation). Applicant argues that “the plain language prohibits interpretation of Lee’s zipper rails being non-parallel” (emphasis added). Respectfully submitted, the discussion was about the “curvilinear” nature of the member and not about “non-parallel”. Applicant goes on to argue “slidability in a non-linear direction” (Remarks, page 7). Again, the discussion is about the term “curvilinear” and not about “slidability in a non-linear direction”. The Examiner can only assume that applicant is importing some structure into the limitation and attempting to argue that specifically imported structure is not possible given Lee. Because in all honesty, the arguments do not make sense given the clear figures disclosed in Lee and as pointed out by the Examiner.
103 Rejection
Claims 5, 22, and 23
Applicant essentially argues the same issues above with regards to Lee in this 103 section. No other specific arguments are made (emphasis added).
Claim 6
Applicant essentially argues the same issues above with regards to Lee in this 103 section. No other specific arguments are made (emphasis added).
Claim 24
Applicant essentially argues the same issues above with regards to Lee in this 103 section. No other specific arguments are made (emphasis added).
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
4/20/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights