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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (5,711,524).
Regarding claim 1, Bauer discloses a puzzle construction comprising a plurality of single pieces (2) made from puzzle blocks. Note Figure 3 and column 1, lines 64-67 stating that the pieces comprise rhombic dodecahedrons. The rhombic dodecahedrons define a bipyramidal structure in that the pieces provide pyramids on either end of the structure with lateral surfaces therebetween. The surfaces are suitable for supporting the puzzle pieces on a puzzle board (4). In the alternative, note Figures 7 and 8 and column 3, lines 3-9 of Bauer teaching a rhombic octahedron shape (10) for the puzzle pieces. The rhombic octahedron defines a bipyramidal structure for the puzzle block that forms the puzzle pieces. The surfaces of the rhombic octahedron define lateral surfaces that are suitable for supporting the puzzle block on a surface of the puzzle board. Note Figure 7. Bauer defines a structure with two pyramids that are connected by a mantle therebetween. The mantle is defined by polygons therebetween. Note Figure 3. Bauer discloses the piling has a pyramidal shape (col 1 lines 67- col 2 line 2.) If there is any doubt with examiner’s interpretation of the pyramidal shape, the examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form any particular shape including a bipyramidal structure as a matter of design choice. See in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) where the court held that the configuration of shape is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Regarding claim 2, the embodiments of Figures 3 and 7 and 8 of Bauer both define elongated bipyramidal structures. Regarding claims 3 and 5, see figs 1, 3, 7.
Regarding claim 4, note Figure 3 of Bauer showing the rhombic dodecahedron which defines two pyramidal structures at the top and bottom of the shape. Further, Figures 7 and 8 of Bauer define the rhombic octahedron which consists of two pyramidal structures. Regarding claim 6, the additional pyramids between the top and bottom pyramidal structures of the rhombic dodecahedron defines polygons having four corners. Regarding claim 7, the puzzle pieces of Figures 3 and 7 and 8 define regular polygons with at least one plane of symmetry. Regarding claim 9, note Figure 3 of Bauer showing the rhombic dodecahedron which defines two pyramidal structures at the top and bottom of the shape. Further, Figures 7 and 8 of Bauer define the rhombic octahedron which consists of two pyramidal structures. Regarding claims 10 and 11, it is noted that claim 1 uses the language "and/or" and does not necessitate the multiple puzzle pieces constructed from puzzle blocks. Thus, claims 10 and 11 are taught by the structure of Bauer.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 5,711,524) in view of Cheng (US 8,480,449). Regarding claim 10, Bauer lacks the teaching for the puzzle pieces to comprise multiple puzzle pieces wherein adjacent blocks are connected along at least one polygon of the mantle as recited. Cheng reveals that it is known in the art of puzzles comprising multiple puzzle pieces (10) which are assembled to cover a puzzle board (20a) to form the puzzle pieces as connected pieces which are joined along the polygons of the mantle of the piece and wherein the polygons are completely covered by the connection. Note Figure 1. Attention is directed to Figure 5 of Bauer and Figure 6 of Cheng which both teach the puzzle pieces arranged into a pyramidal configuration on the puzzle board. Cheng also teaches that it is known in the art of these intellectual types of puzzles to provide both single and multiple block units for arrangement into the pyramidal configuration. Note column 1, lines 17-27 and 33-45. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the pieces of Bauer as multiple puzzle pieces comprising connected pieces along polygons of the mantle in order to alter the difficulty of the puzzle. Regarding the limitation of “completely” covering the polygons, the examiner notes that Bauer has multiple embodiments including fig 5 which shows polygons completely covering one another.
Regarding claim 11, note Figure 1 of Cheng showing the multiple puzzle pieces in the
same plane.
Regarding claim 12, note Figure 1 of Cheng showing that it is known to provide puzzle
pieces such that they are all multiple puzzle pieces to form the pyramidal arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the puzzle of Bauer with only multiple puzzle pieces in order to alter the difficulty of the puzzle while still permitting arrangement into a pyramidal configuration.
Regarding claim 13, note Figure 1 of Cheng teaching multiple puzzle pieces comprising
at least two puzzle blocks. Given this suggestion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the puzzle pieces of Bauer with at least two puzzle blocks in order to alter the difficulty of the puzzle while still permitting assembly into the pyramidal configuration.
Regarding claim 14, note Figure 1 of Cheng showing a first group of puzzle pieces (10a)
comprising up to eight connected puzzle blocks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form similar puzzle pieces for the puzzle of Bauer in order to alter the difficulty of the puzzle while still permitting assembly into the pyramidal configuration.
Regarding claim 15, Bauer discloses a puzzle board (4) for supporting the puzzle pieces
during assembly. Note Figures 1 and 2. The puzzle board obviously provides top and bottom surfaces. Note Figure 2 showing the top surface of the puzzle board with a puzzle field consisting of regular positions forming a two-dimensional field for receiving the puzzle pieces (2). Further, note Figures 7 and 8 showing the top surface of the puzzle board with a puzzle field consisting of regular positions forming a two-dimensional field for receiving the puzzle pieces (10). However, Bauer teaches that the field comprises openings in the top surface and not indentations. Cheng reveals that it is known in the art of puzzle comprising a playing field that receives puzzle pieces to form the playing field by indentations in the top surface of the puzzle board. Note Figure 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the puzzle field of Bauer with indentations instead of openings in order to provide an alternative structure that is equally capable of supporting the puzzle pieces on the surface of the puzzle board. Regarding the limitation for both the top and bottom surfaces of the puzzle board to comprise indentations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both the top and bottom surfaces of Bauer with the playing field thereon in order to permit the user to use either side for assembling the puzzle. This modification is an obvious duplication of parts. Note MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Regarding claim 16, note the rejection of claims 1 and 15 as these claims recite substantially similar limitations. Regarding claim 17, as notes in claim 10, Bauer shows an alternative embodiment with fig 5 where polygons completely cover one another.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner has modified rejection for the bipyramidal limitation as noted with the citation of in re Dailey. There does not appear to be any criticality to the actual shape being claimed so it is the examiner’s position that the actual shape is merely a matter of obvious design choice. As stated supra, Bauer also discloses a pyramid shape as well (col 1 lines 67 to col 2 line 2). Note column 1, lines 17-27 and 33-45 in secondary reference Cheng as well. This new grounds of rejection was not necessitated by an amendment so this office is not made FINAL.
Regarding applicant’s argument with the limitation directed towards the polygons in connection completely covering each, the office action has addressed this with an alternative embodiment with Bauer. Furthermore, under BRI, the claims do not also recite that a joining member can not be included to cover adjacent polygons.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to “wherein each lateral surface of the pyramidal structures is suitable for optimally supporting the puzzle block on one or more surfaces of the puzzle board, the examiner first notes that under BRI this limitation is being interpreted as a functional limitation as the lateral surfaces of Bauer are capable of supporting a puzzle block on a puzzle board. As shown in fig 3, the lateral surfaces are capable/suitable of supporting the puzzle block of a puzzle board. Furthermore, the examiner contends that even assuming for arguendo that Bauer teaches tips being used to support the pieces, this reads on a surface under BRI as a surface can be defined as an external part, such that, the tip is the external part of a block so that this reads on a surface as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
