DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 1 August 2025, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 10-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 1 August 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
The examiner notes that the Specification at page 1, line 5 identifies serial number 18/645,023 and the Application Data Sheet filed 12 June 2024 identifies serial number 18/645,823.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56(A). The examiner notes that Applicant has claimed priority to an application, however no Information Disclosure Statements have been filed. The Office encourages Applicants to carefully examine: (1) prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and (2) the closest information over which individuals associated with filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material contained therein is disclosed to the Office. (See MPEP 2001.04).
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 2-4 and 6-7 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 claims 2 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially planar” 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. It is unclear what deviations from “planar” are contemplated by Applicant, and thus unclear what deviations from actually planar would be understood as being substantially planar by persons having ordinary skill in the art. A review of the Specification as filed does not appear to find the word “substantially” is used outside of the claims. .
Claim 2 recites the pronoun “its” at line 1. It is difficult to determine to which previously presented claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed elements in full each time they are to be referenced.
Claim 3 recite “at both ends” with respect to the second block. It is unclear how many ends the second block includes. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, a block is a three-dimensional object, and if a regular prismatic shape, would include 6 faces or ends. Nothing in the claims limits the shape of the block to a regular prismatic block, however.
Claim 4 recites the pronoun “its” at line 1. It is difficult to determine to which previously presented claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed elements in full each time they are to be referenced.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 6 recite “at both ends” with respect to the second block. It is unclear how many ends the second block includes. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, a block is a three-dimensional object, and if a regular prismatic shape, would include 6 faces or ends. Nothing in the claims limits the shape of the block to a regular prismatic block, however.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 6.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent 10,478,741 to Heo (hereinafter “Heo”) in view of United States 5,771,650 to Williams et al. (hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claim 1, Heo discloses a first block (20) having a male coupling part and a second block (10) having a female coupling part for receiving the male coupling part (see Col. 4, lines 7-13). Heo teaches that the female coupling part includes a plurality of elongate arms (11) which are compressed to facilitate selectively securing the female part to the male part (see Col. 2, lines 33-44). Heo teaches that connecting the first block (20) to the second block includes 1) situating the protrusion of the second block (20) adjacent the socket (see Fig. 6); squeezing the plurality of elongate clip arms on the first block towards one another (see Col. 4, lines 31-39); inserting the protrusion of the second block into the socket of the first block (see Fig. 6); and discontinuing the squeezing of the plurality of the elongate clip arms on the first block to connect the first block to the second block (see Col. 4, lines 40-49).
Heo does not explicitly disclose that the protrusion on the second block is a ball.
However, it is known in the art of selectively joinable toy blocks to provide ball shaped protrusions for joining.
For example, Williams teaches such a toy block. Williams teaches toy blocks (20) having a socket (48) and a ball member (40). The toy block components may be joined together selective such that the socket may be flexed to receive the ball member during joining (see Col. 5, lines 29-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Heo to include another and conventional protrusion member, such as a ball shaped member as taught by Williams. (see MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably allow for the selective connecting and disconnecting of two blocks to one another, without modification of the principles of operation of Heo. One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the flexible coupling parts of Heo could connect to another and conventional block protrusion, including a ball shape.
Thus, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Heo teaches that the first block is substantially planar (see exemplary block of Fig. 10), has its own ball protrusion (protrusion portion at a lower end of Fig. 10) at an end opposite the socket end (upper end with respect to Fig. 10) and resembles an A-shaped block (see Fig. 10). Heo is understood to teach interchangeable block members which may interact with one another, such that any of the blocks having a socket may be construed as the first block.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Heo teaches that the second block is substantially planar (see exemplary block of Fig. 7), has a ball protrusion socket at both ends (protrusion portions at upper and lower end of Fig. 7) and resembles an X-shaped block (see Fig. 7, and Fig. 6, understood to have at least one profile view in which block resembles an X shape). Heo is understood to teach interchangeable block members which may interact with one another, such that any of the blocks having a protrusion may be construed as the second block.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Heo teaches that the first block is radially symmetric (block of Fig. 5 has a radially symmetric profile in view as shown in Fig. 6), has its own ball protrusion (equivalent protruding portion at lower end of Fig. 5) at an end opposite the socket end (upper end of Fig. 5) and resembles a conically shaped A-shaped block (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 4, and further Heo teaches that the plurality of elongate clip arms (11) are included in two or more squeezable side panel aprons (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Heo teaches that the second block is radially symmetric (exemplary block of Fig. 7 appears to be radially symmetric around at least two axes), has a ball protrusion socket at both ends (equivalent protrusion portion shown at both upper and lower end of Fig. 7, and resembles a double conical block with an X-shaped cross-section (X-shaped cross section at least in “top down” view equivalent to Fig. 6; Fig. 7 could be thought of as approximating two cones or triangles meeting with narrowest points at the uppermost and lowermost ends of the Figure).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further Heo teaches that the plurality of elongate clip arms (11; see Fig. 6) are included in two or more squeezable side panel aprons for each end of the double conical block with the X-shaped cross-section (clip arms 11 are understood to be present at upper and lower ends of block).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Heo teaches that the socket of the first block (see exemplary block of Fig. 3) includes at least one expansion joint (at space between wings 11 and flexible portion at 16) extending upwardly from an interior point of the socket and allowing for lateral movement when the ball protrusion of the second block is inserted into the socket of the first block (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Heo and Williams teaches the limitations of claim 8, and further Heo teaches that the expansion joint is T-shaped (open space between arms 11 and indents 14 can be construed as an inverted T-shape; see Annotated Figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The prior art of record is directed to selectively joinable toys or blocks.
United States Patent 5,984,756 to Krog teaches a toy block construction system.
United States Patent 6,665,993 to Sorensen et al. teaches a toy block assembly system including flexible balls for securing components together.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/D.C.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 08/23/2025