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 .
Election/Restrictions
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 11/24/2025. Claim 8 has been amended. Claims 18-20 are new. Claims 1-7 and 11-17 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 8, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishikawa teaches (US Patent No. 7,229,334 B2).
In Reference to Claims 8, 18, and 20
Ishikawa teaches (Claim 8) A method of assembling a composite base plate, comprising: positioning a first component base plate (an item 2, fig’s 1-4) having a first interlocking mechanism extending along a peripheral edge (item 7, fig’s 1-4) to align with a second component base plate (another item 2, fig’s 1-4) having a second interlocking mechanism extending along a peripheral edge (item 8, fig’s 1-4; column 4 lines 40-51), wherein the first and second component base plates each comprise a planar sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, with a plurality of nodes projection from the top surface (top and bottom surfaces of an item 2, fig’s 1-4, and nodes 6), and aligning the first and second component base plates includes mating the first interlocking mechanism with the second interlocking mechanism (column 4 lines 40-51);
(Claim 18) wherein nodes in the plurality of nodes of each of the first and second component base plates are evenly spaced from one another with a uniform spacing (items 6, fig’s 1-4); nodes adjacent the first interlocking mechanism of the first component base plate are positioned a first distance from a peripheral edge of the first interlocking mechanism; nodes adjacent the second interlocking mechanism of the second component base plate are positioned a second distance from a peripheral edge of the second interlocking mechanism (fig’s 1-3, edges nodes on first and second baseplates, fig. 3 shows nodes spaced from edge a distance that is half the distance between nodes within the baseplate); the plurality of nodes of each of the first and second component base plates are configured such that, when the first interlocking mechanism and the second interlocking mechanism are secured to one another, a sum of the first distance and the second distance is such that the nodes adjacent the first interlocking mechanism are spaced from the nodes adjacent the second interlocking mechanism with the uniform spacing of the plurality of nodes of each of the first and second component base plates (fig. 1, when connected items 2 create a uniform grid, fig. 3, again space from node to edge is half distance between other nodes, meeting this limitation);
(Claim 20) wherein the uniform spacing between the nodes adjacent the first interlocking mechanism and the nodes adjacent the second interlocking mechanism is such that a building brick may be secured to the composite base plate, with the building brick secured to nodes adjacent the first interlocking mechanism and to nodes adjacent the second interlocking mechanism (fig, 1, items 3, 4, 5, etc. are connected across edge nodes).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Yonezawa (US Patent No. 3,594,940).
In Reference to Claim 9
Ishikawa teaches all of claim 8 as discussed above.
Ishikawa fails to teach the feature of claim 9.
Yonezawa teaches (Claim 9) wherein [a] first interlocking mechanism is in the form of a two-tier annular ledge comprising a top ledge and a bottom ledge, the top ledge extending further horizontally from the planar sheet than the bottom ledge (fig’s 2 and 7, left side connection), and [a] second interlocking mechanism is in the form of a two-tier annular ledge comprising a top ledge and a bottom ledge, the bottom ledge extending further horizontally from the planar sheet than the top ledge (fig’s 2 and 7, right side connection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the construction baseplate system of Ishikawa with the feature of a two tiered ledge type connection as taught by the construction baseplate system of Yonezawa for the purpose of creating an easy to connect snap fit connection as taught by Yonezawa (column 1 lines 24-29 and 66-71), making the connection more reliable, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that selection of a known item based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Since Ishikawa teaches a baseplate system with a suitable side connection for mating with other baseplates, merely claiming a known type of connection for connecting edges of substrates is an obvious matter of selecting a known item based on its suitability for its intended use, is also simply substituting one known element for another, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 19
Ishikawa teaches all of claims 8 and 18 as discussed above.
Ishikawa fails to teach the feature of claim 19.
Yonezawa teaches (Claim 19) wherein [a] first spacing at [a] first interlocking mechanism and [a] second spacing at [a] second interlocking mechanism are different from one another (fig. 2, spacing from node to rightmost edge is larger than spacing from node to leftmost end).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the interlocking baseplate system of Ishikawa with the feature of different spacings as taught by the interlocking baseplate system of Yonezawa for the purpose of providing complementary but non-identical mating structures that form a snap fit connection as taught by Yonezawa (column 1 lines 24-29 and 66-71), making the connection more reliable, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since both Ishikawa and Yonezawa teach that assembled baseplates maintain spacing between nodes when edges are combined on separate baseplates (Ishikawa fig’s 1-3 and Yonezawa column 2 lines 5-12), merely claiming the relative lengths of one or the other of these connections that would yield the same result is simply a matter of discovering workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Tone (US Patent No. 4,766,022).
In Reference to Claim 10
Ishikawa teaches all of claim 8 as discussed above.
Ishikawa further teaches (Claim 10) further comprising: securing the first component base plate to the second component base plate (column 4 lines 40-51) [].
Ishikawa fails to teach using a bonding material of claim 10.
Tone teaches (Claim 10) wherein [] first and second component base plates are secured to one another by a bonding material that is applied to at least one of: [1] a backing material to which the two component base plates are commonly secured; and [ii] [] first and second interlocking mechanisms (items 20 is a bonding material, fig. 4, column 3 lines 16-20 and column 4 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the substrate connection system of Ishikawa with the feature of a bonding material as taught by the substrate connection system of Tone for the purpose of providing additional stability to the connection as taught by Tone (column 4 lines 1-6), making the connection and, therefore, the system more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Tone reference are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which was necessitated by the amendments. See action above for further details.
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 JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711