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 .
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 1-5 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.
There are antecedent basis issues for the limitations below:
Claim 1, line 2, “said module.” There is a modular trainer and plural cubic modules previously disclosed so it is unclear what “said module” is referring to.
Claim 1, lines 5-6 “the horizontal…the vertical plane” and “the head, arms and legs,” “the corpus”, “the elements, “the upper plane”, “hips”, “the lower plane”, line 10 “the side of which is equal to 1”, “the height”, the extreme points”, “the length”, “the width”, “the shoulders”, “the elbows” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 2, similar from claim 1 and including “the skirt”
Claim 3, similar from claim 1 and including “the trunk, the lateral branches, the inner base, the lower base”
Claim 4, similar from claim 1 and including “the head and nose, the tail, the back leg, the middle leg”
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which requires the figure of boy but further requires the figure of a girl, a cactus and a dog. The same antecedent basis issues exists as pointed out above.
The terms “figure of a boy” in claim 1, “figure of a girl” in claim 2, “figure of a cactus” in claim 3, “figure of a dog” in claim 4 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “figure of a boy” “figure of a girl” “figure of a cactus” figure of a dog” are 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. A figure can be many shapes. For example, it appears the dog has a middle leg? This is not a typical “figure” of a dog.
It is unclear how “the projections of one module are inserted in to the recesses of another module” on the same device. The next limitation stating the projections of the same module are inserted in the recesses of another module more clearly state that applicant may be claiming more than one device in the claim. If this is the case, claiming a kit may be necessary or “at least a first and a second module” in order to clarify.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnus (US 2278327).
Regarding claim 1, Magnus shows a modular trainer consists of cubic modules schematically depicting a figure of a boy (figure 8), characterized in that the said module has projections and recesses, the projections of one module are inserted into the recesses of another module, and the projections of the same module are located in the recesses of another module, and the modules in one composition can be located both in the horizontal and in the vertical plane (figure 18), the head, arms and legs perform the function of the projections and the function of the recesses is performed by the recesses between the head and arms, the recesses on both sides of the corpus and the recess between the legs (see annotated figure) , and the elements of the module have a rectangular shape (fig 8)and are of the same thickness, while the upper plane of the arms and hips and the lower plane of the legs are made in the form of a square (the upper arms and lower legs are square), the side of which is equal to 1, and the ratio of the lengths of the sides of the other elements of the module is calculated based on the length of the side of the square, accordingly, the height of the arms and the distance between the extreme points of the legs, the length of the corpus is 3, the width of the shoulders is 1.25, the distance between the extreme points of the arms, the length of the legs is 5, the distance from the elbows to the corpus is 2. Magnus shows many ratios in many configurations and discloses in the specification how one skilled in the art would understand that using different “relative proportioning of the parts (page 3 lines 62-63; right column)” allows for the arrangement of blocks in many different variations allowing different shapes to be made for educational purposes (spec).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected as applied above where figure 13 is the figure of a girl. See annotated figure below
PNG
media_image2.png
224
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected as applied above to claim 1 where figure 12 is the figure of a cactus with a trunk in the center and left and right branches.
Claim 4 is rejected as applied to claim 1 above where figure 11 is a figure of a dog.
PNG
media_image3.png
238
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected as applied to claims 1-4 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA ROSE FULTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675