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 .
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.
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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least two kit elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends) recites at least one kit element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berglund. Berglund discloses in the Figures and specification (see in particular Figs 1 & 2 and paragraph [0062]) a plurality of kit elements including wall and roof panels 102-116, where the panels are configured to be attached to each other via a connection system which allows a structure to be assembled without destruction of the panels. Berglund further discloses at paragraph [0082] an embodiment where the connection system comprises Velcro elements.
With respect to claim 2, Berglund discloses at paragraph [0103] that the panels are formed of a variety of materials including plastic or wood. With respect to claim 4, Berglund discloses in Figures 40-46 and at paragraph [0086] an embodiment where the kit elements are formed as foldable templates as recited. With respect to claim 5, the device of Berglund is a children’s toy. With respect to claim 6, the device of Berglund is configured to be selectively assembled and disassembled without destruction of the panels.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund in view of Engelhard. Berglund discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of kit elements being formed by 3D printing as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Engelhard at paragraph [0141], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of allowing a user to for the kit elements in a predetermined shape.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund. With respect to claim 7, the provision of rectangular wall panels is considered to be an obvious change in shape of the corresponding features of Berglund having no new or unexpected results under MPEP 2144.04(I) and 2144.04(IV)(B).Berglund also discloses a door panel 102 having a plurality of interlocking tabs and a doorway therein as recited. Berglund also discloses sloping roof elements. Again, the recited rectangular shape of the roof panels in an obvious change in shape. The panels of Berglund are also capable of being painted and washed. With respect to claim 8, the folding templates shown in Figs. 40-46 suggest the recited foldable pleat on which the locking tabs are disposed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund in view of Saneshige. Berglund discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of additional panels as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Saneshige at Fig. 12 and paragraph [0033], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of allowing a user to customize the appearance of the device by creating a greater variety of assembled play structures.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund in view of Boerman. Berglund discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of reusable stickers as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example at paragraphs [0041] and [0044] by Boerman (which teaches stickers and static cling decals, suggesting reusable stickers), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of allowing a user to customize the appearance of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
February 20, 2026