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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9-11, 18, 19, 21-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not address all issues that were present in the 112b rejections, particularly about the description of “facing side” or “segments”, which are of particular importance to the described subject matter. Further, applicant’s new claimed subject matter of “straight bottom shape top”, “bottom shape bottom”, “straight middle shape top”, “middle shape bottom” are all segments, which, as assumed are claimed to be attached to parts that applicant does not disclose. Please see more 112b rejections below.
Examiner notes that new drawings and new specifications were submitted. Examiner notes that the drawings only add axes of rotation; the drawings are entered. The specification, however, changes names which are not assisting of understanding, for instance the difference between annulus and segments in [0022]. Examiner does not enter the specification amendments.
Regarding “integrally formed”, examiner notes that the segments are improperly claimed as to which segments they are attached in claims 1 and 26, but are properly claimed in claim 11. Regardless, the prior art shows the structure claimed.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 11/18/2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the amendments create definiteness rejections and are not clear.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/18/2025. These drawings are entered.
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 applicant claims terms which are not shown in the drawings, or clearly described in the specification.
“middle polygon…comprising a middle polygon top segment” of claim 1. Examiner notes that the top polygon has a segment 114. The record is not clear if “segment” is a gap/absence of material (opening to allow for the insertion of part 114), or if the “segment” is a protrusion from the exterior of the periphery.
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 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 26:
Applicant does not claim that the top polygon has a top segment 114, but does not claim segment 114 in relation to the top polygon. Applicant seems to claim the middle polygon has the “middle polygon top segment”, which applicant attempts to disclose as part 114. Examiner notes that this is improper, and is properly claimed in claim 11. Claim 1 either improperly claims part 114 as part of the middle polygon, or is claiming the gap allowing for the insertion of part 114. The record is not clear.
Similarly, applicant claims the segment 124, which is integral with the middle polygon, as part of the bottom polygon. The record is not clear if “segment” is a protrusion, or if it is the gap allowing for the insertion of the “segment”.
“facing side” is not clearly described or shown. Does applicant mean a side with decoration? Opposite an earring post?
Applicant claims four segments: “middle polygon top segment”, “middle polygon bottom segment”, “bottom polygon top segment”, “bottom polygon bottom segment”. Examiner notes that the drawings disclose only two protrusions from an exterior periphery, segments 114 (unitary with top polygon) and segment 124 (unitary with middle polygon). The record is not clear as to what the other two segments are, and the claim language does not assist. Examiner notes that the prior art shows the disclosed structure, and therefore, meets the indefinite claim language.
Two “hinge axis”; applicant does not positively claim a hinge, or any structure that allows pivoting movement.
“hinge axis perpendicular to a normal axis of the facing side”. Examiner notes that the central section seems to be generally flat and plate like. Claiming “perpendicular to a normal axis of the facing side” seems to indicate “parallel to the outer periphery” that is previously claimed of the central section.
Regarding claims 21-25, and 27-29, applicant claims:
“free motion of the second segment in a first range about the first hinge axis”. Examiner notes that applicant does not claim a hinge. The “segment” is not clearly disclosed. Further, there is no “free motion” of two abutting surfaces in the presence of gravity. If applicant agrees with what examiner assumes the “segment” is, perhaps applicant means “pivotable about the segment”. Examiner notes that there is no such thing as “free motion” based on gravity and friction, and therefore, is improper to be used.
“appears attached to and suspended below”. Examiner notes that all shapes/polygons are, in fact, attached to each other. Regarding “suspended below”, examiner notes that there is no up or down claimed by applicant, and therefore, can be regarded in a line.
Applicant does not consistently claim the first configuration, second configuration, or third configuration. Perhaps applicant means first configuration is the “extended configuration” as in figure 1, the third configuration is the “circumscribed configuration” as in figure 2.
Further, applicant positively claims three polygons/shapes in all independent claims. Therefore, any definition of a “configuration” which do not positively mention all three polygons/shapes, are improper. Examiner also notes that applicant does not positively require these orientations, but merely requires “configured to accommodate” the configurations, which is merely providing an appropriately sized adjacent link.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 18-19, 21-22, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 2095547 Girouard.
Examiner notes that all similar claims will be treated together.
Regarding claim 26, Girouard discloses a reconfigurable (changing the number of links) jewelry piece (bracelets/neckbands, line 4) comprising:
a top shape (generally rectangular, figure 3) having at least one side (upper and lower in figure 2) and an outer periphery (outer periphery includes a protrusion 13 which has a through hole 15);
a middle shape (generally rectangular, figure 3) having at least one side (upper and lower, in figure 2) comprising a straight middle shape top segment (assumed to be segments 12) fixed to the outer periphery (meaning the protrusion 13) of the top shape (as shown in figure 4), and a middle shape
PNG
media_image1.png
316
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
bottom segment (assumed to be the protrusion 13 which has a through hole 15) hinged along a first hinge axis (hinged by straight middle shape top segment 12 within hole 15, detailed in figures 4-6) within the straight middle shape top segment, the first hinge axis perpendicular to a normal axis of the at least one side of the top (as best understood, the through hole 15 is perpendicular to the axis of the center of gravity of the shape); and
PNG
media_image2.png
266
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a bottom shape (generally rectangular, figure 3) having at least one side comprising a straight bottom shape top segment (assumed to be arms 12) fixed to the outer periphery of the middle shape bottom segment (assumed to be protrusion 13) opposite the straight middle shape top segment, and a bottom shape bottom segment hinged along a second hinge axis within the straight bottom shape top segment (by the arms 12 in the through hole 15, detailed in figure 4), the second hinge axis perpendicular to the normal axis of the at least one side of the middle shape (as best understood, the through hole 15 is perpendicular to the axis of the center of gravity of the shape).
Girouard discloses multiple links of figure 3 together, shown in the manner of figure 4, and therefore discloses at least 3 links in figure 4.
Regarding claim 1, Girouard discloses that the “shape” is a rectangle, which is considered a polygon. Girouard discloses an outer/visible/facing side of the links, which, in a bracelet configuration as disclosed by Girouard, would be the upper surface of the link of figure 2, based on the slight curvature of the links taught in Girouard.
Regarding claim 3, Girouard discloses the jewelry of claim 1, wherein the polygons are regular polygons having an even number of sides (four sides).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, applicant claims “complementary engagement features”, a broad term, are not required to use together, nor used to maintained the “configurations” of claims 23-25, or 28-29. Therefore, the “complementary engagement features” are not required by the claim language to be those disclosed by applicant, based on broadest reasonable interpretation.
Girouard discloses engagement features (abutting surfaces 11 or angled surfaces 16) on the outer periphery of all polygons, and an engagement feature (hole 14 and circular exterior surfaces of posts 12) on the “polygon bottom segment”.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Girouard discloses the jewelry of claim 1, with a first configuration that the middle polygon is linearly next to the first polygon, and the third polygon is linearly next to the middle polygon, as shown in figure 4, with “free motion” meaning that the first and middle polygons can pivot.
Regarding claims 27, Girouard discloses the jewelry of claim 26, having a first configuration, or all shapes in a row, as shown in figure 4. Girouard discloses middle shape appears attached to and suspended below the top shape (figure 4), with “free motion” (please see 112b above) of the middle shape bottom segment about the first hinge axis (pivotable in the manner shown in figure 4), and the bottom shape appears attached to and suspended below the middle shape (figure 4), with “free motion” of the bottom shape about the second hinge axis (as shown in figure 4).
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(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girouard.
Regarding claims 4-6, applicant claims the polygon is either a hexagon or octagon. Girouard discloses the use of a rectangle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the rectangle of Girouard to any other even numbered polygon, as this is an aesthetic choice, and does not affect the link from becoming a chain. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b). Examiner notes that this is done for the purpose of aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04 (I). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Claim(s) 23-25, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girouard as applied to claims 1, 3, 26-27 above, and further in view of 2018/0352918 Rizzo.
Regarding claims 23-25, 28-29, Girouard of claims 1, 3, 21-22, 26, 27 discloses a bracelet having polygonal links that are attached together in the same manner disclosed and claimed by applicant, but does not disclose that the shapes are configured to “appear circumscribed” around an adjacent shape.
Rizzo discloses a “necklace, bracelet, or earring” (claim 3, [0019]) which has pivoting parts, which are configured to have configurations with the links folded together (as in figures 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, 22) so that one link “appears circumscribed” about an adjacent link. Rizzo provides this aesthetic feature by having the adjacent links of similar shapes, but different and successive sizes, so that the larger can fit around the smaller.
PNG
media_image3.png
266
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the successive size of the adjacent polygons of Girouard in order to fold over itself in the old and well known bracelets with variable aesthetics achieved by this function, as taught by Rizzo. Examiner asserts that this change in size has the middle shape/polygon having the middle size, and one shape/polygon being smaller (able to be circumscribed by the middle shape), and the opposite shape/polygon being larger than the middle, so that the largest polygon/shape can circumscribe the middle. These successive sizes allow for the following configurations:
-second configuration with middle circumscribes the smallest shape (as taught in Rizzo), and the largest shape dangling (as taught in Rizzo and Girouard), as claimed in claims 23, 25, 29
-“second configuration” with only the largest shape circumscribing the middle shape (claims 24)
-“second configuration” with both the middle and largest shapes circumscribing the smallest shape (claim 28)
-“third configuration” with the middle circumscribing the smallest, and the largest shape dangling (claim 29).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girouard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rizzo.
Regarding claim 9, Girouard discloses a “bracelet” or “necklace” using the link structure as disclosed. Girouard does not teach that this chain could also function as an earring.
Rizzo discloses a “necklace, bracelet, or earring” (claim 3, [0019]) which has pivoting parts, which are configured to have configurations with the links folded together (as in figures 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, 22) so that one link “appears circumscribed” about an adjacent link. Rizzo provides this aesthetic feature by having the adjacent links of similar shapes, but different and successive sizes, so that the larger can fit around the smaller. Rizzo also discloses that the smallest link 72 has a back side (opposite the side with stones) comprising a jewelry attachment on the back side for attaching the jewelry to a body of the wearer (by attaching the smallest shape to a chain), and Rizzo discloses that this string of links is also known to be an “earring” [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to fill in the smallest link, as taught by Rizzo, in order to use an old and well known attachment mechanism to create the “earring” known alternative, as taught in Rizzo. Examiner discloses that this does not alter the fact that the “necklace or bracelet” of Girouard from being worn in an ornamental manner, this alteration allows the necklace/bracelet of Girouard to be worn as an “earring” in an old and well known obvious alternative for “bracelets or necklaces” as taught by Rizzo.
Regarding claim 10, Girouard as modified discloses the jewelry with an ear stud on the smallest link as taught in claim 9, wherein the top/smallest polygon comprises an inner body (as taught in every embodiment of Rizzo) fixed to and lying within an inner periphery of the top/smallest polygon.
Regarding claim 11, Girouard as modified discloses the jewelry of claim 10, wherein the inner body, the top polygon, and the middle polygon top (protrusion, as assumed above) are integrally formed (as shown in Girouard). Examiner notes that this claim is contradictory to claim 1, “middle polygon…comprising a middle polygon top segment”.
Regarding claim 12, Girouard as modified discloses the jewelry of claim 10, the post (of the earring of Rizzo) fixed to the “back side” of the inner body (the side that the user does not desire to show).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677