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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, filed 4/30/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2024, 11/7/2024, and 6/13/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A creation table for fusible toy bead” should read “A creation table for a fusible toy bead” or “A creation table for fusible toy beads”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “The creation table for fusible toy bead” should read “A creation table for a fusible toy bead” or “The creation table for fusible toy beads”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “both sides” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what sides would be considered “both sides” as the disclosed lug portion has more than two sides (top, bottom, left, right, upper, lower, etc.) and no sides are previously recited.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “both sides” in lines 3, 9, and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what sides would be considered “both sides” as the disclosed second table, first lug, and second lug each have more than two sides (top, bottom, left, right, upper, lower, etc.) and no sides are previously recited.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “both sides” in line 2 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what sides would be considered “both sides” as the disclosed second table and first table each have more than two sides (top, bottom, left, right, upper, lower, etc.) and no sides are previously recited.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiko JP 2011139820.
In Reference to Claim 1
Maiko teaches:
A creation table for fusible toy bead (table device 1 for creating fusible bead B toys, Fig. 1-11b) comprising:
a first table (2) having a plurality of through holes extending in a penetration direction and configured to allow a fusible toy bead to be placed on one side of the plurality of through holes in the penetration direction (through holes 12 hold beads B on a side of the table 2 in a first up direction); and
a second table (3) including a plurality of pins configured to be inserted into and removed from the plurality of through holes from another side of the plurality of through holes in the penetration direction (pins 16b extend through the holes 12 in the first table 2),
wherein the first table is configured to be stacked on the second table in a first direction along a normal direction of the second table such that the plurality of pins are inserted into the plurality of through holes,
the second/first table comprising at least one protruding portion protruding in the first direction (first table 2 is stacked with the second table 3 to insert the pins 16b into the through holes 12, the second table having a protruding portion 28),
wherein the other of the first and second table comprises at least one lug portion connected via a hinge so as to be foldable in the first direction (foldable lug 9 attached via hinge 10 to the first table), and
wherein the at least one lug portion is engaged with the at least one protruding portion by folding the at least one lug portion in the first direction in a state where the first table is stacked on the second table (the lug 9 is pivotal to fold and engage the protrusion 28 on the respective first and second tables to selectively lock and engage the tables in place, Fig. 1, 8, 10).
Further, though Maiko appears to show the lug and protrusion being reversed in position on the respective table portions and not the claimed arrangement of the foldable lug being positioned on the second table and the protrusion being on the first table, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Maiko to have relocated the respective protrusion and lug/hinge to have been respectively on the first or second table as desired as the location of the respective protrusion and lug do not change the function of the device in any meaningful way and the location of each respective holding portion is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 2
Maiko teaches:
The creation table for fusible toy bead according to claim 1, wherein the at least one lug portion comprises a surface, and the surface defines, in a state where the at least one lug portion is not being folded in the first direction, an inclined surface that is inclined from a region where the plurality of pins of the second table are provided to an installation surface on which the second table is installed (in the unfolded state (as shown in shadow in Fig. 8 or in Fig. 3-5), the lug 9 has a surface that is inclined between a first pivot end at hinge 10 where the pins 16b are provided (as reversed/rearranged above such that the hinge would be reversed in position) to a second distal end 35 where the second table is installed).
In Reference to Claim 3
Maiko teaches:
The creation table for fusible toy bead according to claim 1, wherein the at least one protruding portion has an engagement protrusion protruding in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the engagement protrusion is engaged with the at least one lug portion by folding the at least one lug portion in the first direction in a state where the first table is stacked on the second table (protrusions 28 have further extending pairs of engagement protrusions 29 which engage lips 35 in a horizontal direction (essentially perpendicular to the folding hinge movement direction which is generally vertical relative to the engagement protrusions) of the lug to further hold the lugs on the protrusions when engaged, Fig. 3, 8).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Maiko to have reoriented the respective engagement surfaces of the protrusion and hinge to have been perpendicular to the first direction in another manner (ex. rotated 90 degrees to extend from the left and right edges inward at the upper and lower ends of the lug, or the like) as the respective location of the respective protrusion and lug engagement portions does not materially change the function of the device in any meaningful way and the location of each respective holding portion is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 4
Maiko teaches:
The creation table for fusible toy bead according to claim 3, wherein the at least one protruding portion comprises two protruding portions, and the two protruding portions are situated on both sides of the at least one lug portion, respectively, to sandwich the at least one lug portion in the second direction in a state where the first table is stacked on the second table and the at least one lug portion is folded in the first direction (each of the two protrusions 28 have further two perpendicularly extending engagement protrusions 29 which engage respective ends of lips 35 of each of the lugs to further hold the lugs on the protrusions when engaged, Fig. 3, 8).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Maiko to have reoriented the respective engagement surfaces of the protrusions and lug to have been perpendicular to the first direction in another manner (ex. rotated 90 degrees to extend from the left and right edges inward at the upper and lower ends of the lug, or the like) as the respective location of the respective protrusion and lug engagement portions does not materially change the function of the device in any meaningful way and the location of each respective holding portion is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 5
Maiko teaches:
The creation table for fusible toy bead according to claim 3, wherein the at least one lug portion comprises a first lug portion and a second lug portion, and the first lug portion and the second lug portion are provided on both sides of the second table in a third direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, respectively (pair of lugs 9 situated on opposite sides of each table from one another), wherein the at least one protruding portion comprises: two first protruding portions provided on one side of the first table in the third direction; and two second protruding portions provided on another side of the first table in the third direction, wherein the two first protruding portions are situated on both sides of the first lug portion, respectively, to sandwich the first lug portion in the second direction in a state where the first table is stacked on the second table and the first lug portion is folded in the first direction, and wherein the two second protruding portions are situated on both sides of the second lug portion, respectively, to sandwich the second lug portion in the second direction in a state where the first table is stacked on the second table and the second lug portion is folded in the first direction (each of the two protrusions 28 have further two perpendicularly extending engagement protrusions 29 which engage respective ends of lips 35 of each of the lugs to further hold the lugs on the protrusions when engaged, Fig. 3, 8).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Maiko to have reoriented the respective engagement surfaces of the protrusions and lug to have been perpendicular to the first direction in another manner to sandwich respective ends of the lug at each top and bottom outer edge (ex. rotated 90 degrees to extend from the left and right edges inward at the upper and lower ends of the lug, or the like, with the engaging lips of the lug engaging the engaging protrusion pairs at the upper and lower edges of the respective lug) as the respective location of the respective protrusion and lug engagement portions does not materially change the function of the device in any meaningful way and the location of each respective holding portion is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 6
Maiko teaches:
The creation table for fusible toy bead according to claim 3, wherein the at least one lug portion comprises two lug portions provided on both sides of the second table in a third direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, respectively, and wherein the at least one protruding portion comprises two protruding portions provided on both sides of the first table in the third direction, respectively (the pair of lugs are positioned one opposite sides of each table and have portions which each engage respective portions of the respective pair of protrusions 28, wherein each protrusion further has two extending engagement protrusions 29 which engage respective ends of lips 35 of each of the lugs to further hold the lugs on the protrusions when engaged, Fig. 3, 8).
Further, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Maiko to have reoriented the respective engagement surfaces of the protrusions and lug to have been perpendicular to the first direction in another manner (ex. rotated 90 degrees to extend from the left and right edges inward at the upper and lower ends of the lug, or the like) as the respective location of the respective protrusion and lug engagement portions does not materially change the function of the device in any meaningful way and the location of each respective holding portion is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Yang (5,704,789), Kamiyama (2012/0186748, 9,375,634, 9,956,495), Cooke (2014/0120501), Poulus (10,898,821, 2017/0087480), Sakai (11,117,066, 10,478,740, 10,279,278, 2024/0238687, 2024/0238690, 2018//0043276), and Robbins (12,311,282) teach similar fusible toy bead creation means.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (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 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711