DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. Therefore, the “face caps” of claims 6, 12, and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Interpretation
For purposes of clarity of the record, based on the preamble of claim 7, the Examiner construes the limitations directed at “an other cube” in claim 7 to be directed at functional limitations that are possible given the structure (i.e. “the cube is configured to be docked to an other cube”’; emphasis added). This same interpretation applies to dependent claims 8, 9, 11, and 12. However, in dependent claim 10, applicant appears to positively recite the need for the structure of the “other cube” when they claim “a locking element of the other cube enters the annular groove of the given cube”. That is why claim 10 is rejected below as the claim limitation is outside the scope of the preamble of claim 7. No correction is required at this time for the other claims (i.e. claims 7-9, 11, and 12), but the Examiner wanted to place his position on the record.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 14- 16 are not proper method claims. The body of the claims should start with an action step ending in “ing” to correctly define a method claim (e.g. “providing”, etc.). 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 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The preamble of claim 1 contains no acceptable transitional phrase according to MPEP 2111.03. As such, the scope of claim 1 is completely unclear (i.e. open, closed, or partial closed). Also, in claim 1, lines 2 and 4-5, applicant claims (emphasis added):
faces of a given cube…
locking elements are rotatably secured within annular grooves in the faces;
the given cube can be docked, through any of its faces…
The above language is unclear. According to the 2nd and 4th line, it appears that the number of “faces” may be less than all six faces of a cube. However, according to line 5, it appears that all six sides/faces of the cube are being claimed. This confusion is caused by applicant first claiming the “faces”, but then not referring back to “the faces” in line 5. In addition, claim 1 presupposes that the “other cube” is “identical” in nature to “the given cube”. This needs to be positively recited within the claims. For example, claim 1, lines 6-7 states “the annular grooves of two adjoining face are coplanar”. This limitation presupposes that there are “annular grooves” on the “other cube”. However, this has never been previously claimed. Claim 1, lines 8-10 also claims “the given cube can be locked to the other cube by simultaneously rotating the locking element of the two adjoining faces”. Again, this presupposes that there are also “locking elements” on the “other cube”. As such, claim 1 assumes that the “other cube” is identical in structure to the “given cube” without actually positively claiming this.
Claim 6 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 “generally ” in claim 6, line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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.
Claims 7-12 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 preamble of claim 7 contains no acceptable transitional phrase according to MPEP 2111.03. As such, the scope of claim 7 is completely unclear (i.e. open, closed, or partial closed). Also, in claim 7, lines 2-4, applicant claims (emphasis added):
faces of a cube…
locking elements are rotatably secured within annular grooves in the faces;
the cube can be docked, through any of its faces…
The above language is unclear. According to the 2nd and 3rd line, it appears that the number of “faces” may be less than all six faces of a cube. However, according to line 4, it appears that all six sides/faces of the cube are being claimed. This confusion is caused by applicant first claiming the “faces”, but then not referring back to “the faces” in line 4. In addition, claim 7 presupposes that the “other cube” is “identical” in nature to “the cube”. This needs to be positively recited within the claims. For example, claim 7, lines 5-6 states “the annular grooves of two adjoining face are coplanar”. This limitation presupposes that there are “annular grooves” on the “other cube”. However, this has never been previously claimed. Claim 7, lines 7-8 also claims “the given cube can be locked to the other cube by simultaneously rotating the locking element of the two adjoining faces”. Again, this presupposes that there are also “locking elements” on the “other cube”. As such, claim 7 assumes that the “other cube” is identical in structure to the “cube” without actually positively claiming this.
Claim 10 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 10 claims “when the locking elements of the two adjoining faces are simultaneously rotated, the locking element of the cube enters an annular groove of the other cube and a locking element of the other cube enters the annular groove of the given cube” (emphasis added). This limitation positively claims structure on the “other cube”. However, the preamble of claim 7 clearly states that claim 7 is claiming a single “cube” and not multiple cubes. As such, claim 10 is outside the scope of the preamble of claim 7. Claim 10, line 4 also refers to “the given cube”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
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 “generally ” in claim 12, line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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.
Claims 13-18 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 13, line 3 and 5-6, applicant claims (emphasis added):
faces of a given cube…
locking elements are rotatably secured within annular grooves in the faces;
docking the first cube, through any of its faces…
The above language is unclear. According to the 3rd and 5th lines, it appears that the “faces” may be less than all six faces of a cube. However, according to line 6, it appears that all six sides/faces of the cube are being claimed. This confusion is caused by applicant first claiming the “faces”, but then not referring back to “the faces” in line 6. In addition, claim 13 presupposes that the “second cube” is “identical” in nature to “the first cube” and the “the first cube” is identical to “the given cube”. This needs to be positively recited within the claims. For example, claim 13, lines 6-7 states “the annular grooves of two adjoining face are coplanar”. This limitation presupposes that there are “annular grooves” on the “second cube”. However, this has never been previously claimed. Claim 7, lines 8-9 also claims “the first cube can be locked to the second cube by simultaneously rotating the locking element of the two adjoining faces”. Again, this presupposes that there are also “locking elements” on the “second cube”. As such, claim 13 assumes that the “second cube” is identical in structure to the “first cube” without actually positively claiming this. Finally, claim 13, line 3 refers to “a given cube”. Claim 13, line 6 refers to “the first cube”. The Examiner assumes that “the given cube” and “the first cube” are the same, but applicant never ties these two together within the body of the claim. Restated, the claim also presupposes that the “first and second cube” have the structural characteristics of “the given cube”, but this is never actually claimed. So, in claim 13, line 6 when applicant claims “docking the first cube, through any of its faces, to the second cube such that the annular grooves of two adjoining faces are coplanar”, the claim language makes no sense. That is, applicant has never previous claimed that the first and second cube actually have annular grooves (or protrusions/recesses or locking elements like the “given cube”).
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 “generally ” in claim 18, line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner has reserved indicating allowable subject matter in light of the 112(b) issues. The extent of the 112(b) errors make it difficult to understand the metes and bounds of the claims. For example, it is completely unclear if all six sides/faces of the cube require protrusions/recesses and locking elements, or if applicant is attempting to claim less than six sides/faces. This interpretation will impact patentability as the Examiner believes that Salem (US Pat. No. 3,747,261) could potentially read on some of the claims dependent upon their amended form. As such, the Examine reserves the right to make a rejection on the merits once the claim language has been corrected to overcome the above 112(b) rejections.
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
4/20/26
Prosecution Insights