DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
A preliminary amendment was filed on 4/2/24. This office action is based on that preliminary amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following needs to be shown:
the one or more double connection means of claim 1;
the attachment elements at 90 degrees difference in orientation of claim 2;
the beveled edges at 45 degrees of claim 4;
the third attachment element of the double connection means of claim 5;
the intermediary plate having a thickness at most equal to the height of the first step in claim 9; and
the base plate being flexible and deformable of claim 16;
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because the preamble does not given any transitional phrase to the claim. As such, it is unclear if claim 1 is open ended, closed ended, or in between.
Claim 1, lines 10-11 and 19 use the language “to any of the preceding claims”. However, there are no preceding claims as the claim 1 is an independent claim. This language should be removed
Claim 1 uses periods (“a.”, “b.”, “c.”). The Examiner recommends using parenthesis instead (“a)”, “b)”, “c)”) so that no periods appear in the body of the claims; consistent with USPTO practices.
Claim 1, line 13 uses the term “and/or”. The term makes it difficult to determine if the subsequent limitation is required or not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3, line 5 uses the word “preferably”. This word should be deleted as it is unclear if the subsequent limitation is required.
Claim 4, line 3 uses the word “preferably”. This word should be deleted as it is unclear if the subsequent limitation is required.
Claim 6, line 12 uses the word “preferably”. This word should be deleted as it is unclear if the subsequent limitation is required.
Claim 16, line 2 uses the word “preferably”. This word should be deleted as it is unclear if the subsequent limitation is required.
Claim 19 uses periods (“a.”, “b.”). The Examiner recommends using parenthesis instead (“a)”, “b)”) so that no periods appear in the body of the claims; consistent with USPTO practices.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 112
The Examiner would like to inform applicant that “the double connection means” and "the single connection means” in claim 1 does not invokes 112(f) as it is further modified by structural language.
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 1-19 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. In particular, applicant uses language in at least claim 1 that is different that used throughout the written description. That is, while applicant has verbatim support on page 13 for the language of claim 1, the language is not used anywhere else in the specification. Specifically, the language is not used in the detailed description present on page 19 to 26 of the specification which describe the invention. As such, it is completely unclear, and thus indefinite, as to which structure applicant is referring to when claiming the structural limitations of claims 1-19. That is, the claim language does not readily map to the drawings and there is no specific guidance on how the language maps to the claimed invention. For example, in claim 1, wherein are the “one or more connectors or connector zones at the backside” located? Where specifically is the “backside”? What is the “inter-means connector”? Where is it located? The Examiner attempts to map out applicant’s claimed invention from Figs. 15 and 16 below. If the below is correct, how are “the connector or connector zones and the attachment elements [are] configured for removable attachment to each other” as claimed by claim 1? The Examiner explores the issues with claim 1 only. However, all of the claims 1-19 suffer from a similar issue. It is completely unclear what language maps to what structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
885
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-19 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 1, line 5 also claims “the backside”. There is no proper antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, line 10 claims “allowing the pegboard to be connected to another pegboard”. However, the preamble of claim 1 only requires one pegboard (i.e. the preamble is “pegboard and beads”). Claim 1, line 9 also claims “at least two attachment elements” and claim 1, line 15“ claims “at [least] one attachment element”. It is unclear if these are the same structure. In addition, claim 1, lines 15-16 refer back to “the attachment elements”. To which “attachment elements” is applicant referring to, the ones on the “double connection means” or the “single connection means”? Claim 1 also claims “wherein the connector or connector zones and the attachment elements are configured from removable attachment with each other”? How can this take place on a single pegboard? It appears that applicant trying to claim connection using multiple pegboards which is outside the preamble of the claim (see discussion above; noting the preamble is simply “pegboard”; and not a plurality of pegboards)? The Examiner also notes that the “single connection means” has 1) at least one attachment element, and 2) an inter-means connector according to claim 1. As such, by definition, the connection means is not really a “single” connection means (i.e. the claim language appears to be contradictory to the normal accepted meaning of “single” it that the connection means has at least a two connection means and applicant has not properly redefined “single connection means”). This also applies to claim 5 for the double connection means. Applicant is specifically claiming in claim 5 that the “double connection means” has a “third attachment element” (emphasis added). This claim appears to contradict the plain meaning of the term “double connection means” as the connection means has at least three connections.
Claim 2 is 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. The term “about” in claim 2, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Also, claim 2 requires the specifics of the “one or more double connection means”. As far as the Examiner can tell, claim 1 does not require the use of “one or more double connection means” because the word “or” is used between items (a) and (b) (noting “and/or” is used). As such, claim 2 is further limiting a structure that is not required by claim 1.
Claim 3 is 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 3 contains the trademark/trade name LEGOTM in line 5. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe cylindrical protrusions extending from a surface and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 4 is 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. The term “about” in claim 4, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 is 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. The term “about” in claim 5, line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Also, as far as the Examiner can tell, claim 1 does not require the use of “one or more double connection means” because the word “or” is used between items (a) and (b) (noting “and/or” is used). As such, claim 5 is further limiting a structure that is not required by claim 1.
Claim 7 is 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. The term “substantially” in claim 7, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 is 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 9 depends from claim 6 and claims “the intermediary plate”. However, the “intermediary plate” is not claimed until claim 8. As such, claim 9 does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claims 11-14 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. The term “substantially” in claim 11, line 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 is 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. The term “substantially” in claim 12, line 2, line 3, and line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 is 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. The term “substantially” in claim 13, line 4 and line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 is 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. The term “essentially” in claim 14, line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 17 is 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. Regarding claim 17, the claim requires “the base plate is provided with pegs on both sides”. However, claim 1 requires that “the pegboard is provided with “one or more connectors or connector zones at the backside” to attach to the “attachment elements”. The Examiner fails to see how the pegboard backside can have both pegs as required by claim 1, and “one or connectors or connector zones” as required by claim 17 allowing it to connect to the attachment elements of the single or double connection means (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that pegs extending from both sides is shown in Fig. 5; but is completely unclear how that peg board then attaches to the “single connection means” using “one or connectors or connector zones at the backside”.
Claim 18 is 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. The term “substantially” in claim 18, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 19 is 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. The term “substantially” in claim 19, line 5 and line 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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.
The following rejection is given as best as the Examiner can understand the claims.
Claims 1-5, 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassam et al. (herein “Kassam”; US Pub. No. 2022/0274033 A1) in view of Ho (US Pub. No. 2016/0271510) and in further view of Lyman (US Pat. No. 4,606,732).
Regarding claim 1, Kassam generally teaches the use of a “peg board” having bead that can attach to a LEGO style base plate including a peg board at the top and a connector zone at the bottom (Fig. 16 and par. [0171]-[0176]). Ho discloses a peg board with an extending peg protrusion onto which bead may be placed (Fig. 4). Using the Ho peg board with extending protrusions over the Kassam peg board without protrusions would have be a simple substitution of one element (a peg board with protrusions) for another (a peg board without protrusions) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to use a peg board on the top, the peg board having protrusions). Lyman generally teaches what may be construed as “two or more single connection means” with “at least one attachment element” at the top (Fig. 6; noting the Examiner construes the blocks themselves to be the “single connection means”, and the “attachment elements” to be the protrusion off the top of each block). Lyman also discloses a “inter-means connector” to attach the block to another block (Fig. 6; noting the extension that allows the block to rotate when attached to another). As noted in the claim language of claim 1, the use of “one or more double connection means” is not required because “or” is used between item (a) and item (b). Using the pegboard of the combined Kassam and Ho on top of the “single connection means” block of Lyman so that the peg boards could be connected together would have been obvious to a POSA because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a peg board attached to a LEGO base plate and a single means connection block having LEGO-like projections) according to known methods (attaching the peg board to the block) to obtain predictable results (using the peg board on top of the blocks, the two structures attached by a LEGO type connection).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation is not required because the “one or more double connection means” of claim 1 is not required (i.e. “or” is used between items (a) and (b) and the Examine uses the “single connection means” to meet the limitations of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation is obvious given the combined Kassam, Ho, and Lyman. Kassam discloses a peg board attached to a LEGO base. Ho discloses a pegboard with protrusion onto which beads may be placed. Lyman discloses LEGO-like tubular protrusions from the top of the block.
Regarding claim 4, Kassam shows what appears to be straight edges on the pegboard (Fig. 16). In addition, the Examiner sees no criticality to use a beveled edge. Restated, regarding using beveled edges, 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).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation is not required because the “one or more double connection means” is not required (i.e. “or” is used between items (a) and (b) and the Examine uses the “single connection means” to meet the limitations of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ho discloses pegs with a circular shape (Figs. 2 and 4). In addition, the Examiner sees no criticality for the pegs having a square shape. Restated, regarding using a square peg, 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).
Regarding claim 16, the Examiner does not see the use of a “flexible base plate” as critical. Restated, regarding using a flexible base plate, 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).
Regarding claim 18, Kassam discloses or at least makes obvious beads with circular openings.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassam et al. (herein “Kassam”; US Pub. No. 2022/0274033 A1) in view of Ho (US Pub. No. 2016/0271510) in view of Lyman (US Pat. No. 4,606,732) and in further view of Poulus et al. (herein “Poulus”; US Pat. No. 10,898,821 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Poulus discloses the use of an “intermediary plate” (Fig.2). The plate allows the beads to be lifted off the base plate. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the combined Kassam, Ho, and Lyman to use an intermediary plate as taught by Poulus because doing so would be use of a known technique (using an intermediary plate) to improve a similar product (a peg board) in the same way (using an intermediary plate on a peg board, the intermediary plate allowing the user to lift the beads off the base plate).
Conclusion
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
2/24/26