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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, filed 6/20/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2024 and 6/25/2024 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: (5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “additional building blocks that are created by symmetrical axial central dividing of the equilateral hexagonal base plate between adjacent primary protrusions and secondary protrusions”. It is unclear what is intended to be defined by this limitation. It appears that the applicant may be intending to claim that additional/new building blocks may be formed by dividing a hexagonal building block into distinct parts or pieces, however as presented it appears more like it is defining the symmetry of the hexagonal building block (formed of six even pie piece shapes, divided in half (symmetrical), etc.). Therefore, the claim is interpreted as not structurally requiring anything more than other hexagonal shaped pieces as those hexagonal shaped pieces have the claimed partial shaped portions formed therein, however the possibility that the claim is trying to define separate distinct partial shaped blocks is also addressed in the rejection. Further, the claim defines that the “blocks are created by symmetrical axial central dividing of the equilateral hexagonal base plate”. This also seems unclear or confusing as the blocks also include side walls, therefore the blocks should also require dividing of the rest of the block as well as the base plate, as the base plate is only part of the block and therefore the base plate cannot be the only part that is divided as the block would still be in one piece if the side walls aren’t divided as well.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a stiffening ring is arranged at the base plate bottom side in contact with insides of the cylindrical secondary protrusions”. It is unclear what is intended to be defined by “insides of the cylindrical secondary protrusions”. In plain meaning this would appear to define a hollow/interior surface of the cylindrical secondary protrusions, however the drawings appear to show that the stiffening ring supports a portion of an outer surface of each cylindrical secondary protrusion at a point closest to the center of the base plate.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the primary protrusion” in line 5, 6. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the claim recites the limitation “a secondary protrusion is centrally arranged at the base plate bottom side” which is very similar in definition to the cylindrical secondary protrusions in claim 1. It is unclear if this is attempting to further define the secondary protrusions of claim 1, or introduce a new protrusion as the labels are very similar. If it is a new protrusion, it should be given a more clear name to clearly differentiate from the previously discussed secondary protrusion(s). Looking to the specification and drawings, it appears to be likely that this claim is trying to define the central protrusion (6) that is connectable to the inner surface of the arrangement of cylindrical primary protrusions, however the claim language is unclear as the claim language defines “a secondary protrusion is centrally arranged at the base plate bottom side, wherein an inner diameter of the secondary protrusion has an outer diameter of the primary protrusion so that the secondary protrusion is pluggable onto the primary protrusion”. Based on the drawings it appears that the secondary protrusion (should be renamed) is cylindrical and hollow such that an inner diameter of the secondary protrusion is pluggable onto an outer diameter of any one of the cylindrical primary protrusions (creating an offset of stacked connected blocks similar to Fig. 14 of Von Daniken vs. an even stacked arrangement similar to Fig. 15 of Von Daniken).
Claims 2-6 and 8 are therefore rejected as they depend from a rejected claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Daniken EP Pat. No. 0027840 in view of Hasan WO 02/36229 and Suzuki US Pat. No. 4,964,833.
In Reference to Claim 1
Von Daniken teaches:
A building block toy set (building set of toy blocks, Fig. 1-34), comprising:
building blocks (Fig. 7-8 shows a hexagonal building block used in the set), including
a multisided flat base plate including a base plate bottom side and a base plate top side (a plate forms the base of the block having six sides A between edges E1-5, wherein the protrusions P1-6 extend from the upper surface of the base plate and F1-6 extend from the lower surface of the base plate, Fig. 7-8),
side walls connected at edges of the base plate bottom side at an angle of 90 degrees (downward extending side walls extend from the base plate bottom along height H perpendicular to the base plate bottom side, Fig. 7-8),
cylindrical primary protrusions arranged at the base plate top side (cylindrical primary protrusions P1-6 extend from and are arranged evenly around the base plate top surface, Fig. 7); and
cylindrical secondary protrusion arranged at the base plate bottom side at a uniform distance from insides of the side walls (cylindrical secondary protrusions F1-6 extend from the opposing bottom surface of the base plate and are arranged and spaced evenly around the base plate and spaced from the downward extending side walls of the block, Fig. 8), so that the primary protrusions are insertable and clampable between the secondary protrusions and the insides of the side walls (primary protrusions P1-6 are inserted and clamp between the side walls D1-6, Fig. 8, also shown in different interacting arrangements/embodiments Fig. 1-6, 28-30),
wherein the multisided flat base plate is an equilateral hexagonal base plate (the base plate is shaped as an equilateral hexagon, Fig. 7-8),
wherein six respective primary protrusions are arranged at the base plate top side centrally with respect to side edges of the equilateral hexagonal base plate at a uniform distance from the side edges of the equilateral hexagonal base plate (cylindrical primary protrusions P1-6 extend from and are arranged evenly around the base plate top surface from a center and even spaced for the side edges, Fig. 7), wherein six respective secondary protrusions are arranged at the base plate bottom side opposite to corner points of the equilateral hexagonal base plate at a uniform distance (cylindrical secondary protrusions F1-6 extend from the opposing bottom surface of the base plate and are arranged and spaced evenly around the base plate and spaced from the downward extending side walls and corners of the block, Fig. 8); and additional building blocks that are created by symmetrical axial central dividing of the equilateral hexagonal base plate between adjacent primary protrusions and secondary protrusions (as presented, each additional building block may be formed by theoretically dividing the hexagonal base of each building block as desired (ex. such that one half of the block may be attached to another, etc.) as the claim does not appear to require that the additional blocks are formed by physically dividing a hexagonal building block into distinct and separate building blocks having specific shapes). Each additional hexagonal building block as shown may be theoretically divided between protrusions into usable building block sections, or divided into halves or any other divisible piece as sections but still remaining a single building block), and wherein a stiffening ring is arranged at the base plate bottom side in contact with insides of the cylindrical secondary protrusions (Fig. 8 shows a stiffening member extending between//contacting inner surfaces of the cylindrical protrusions (F1-6), Fig. 8 (also shown in Fig. 1, 3-6).
Though Von Daniken doesn’t specifically teach the set including additional building blocks having partial hexagonal shapes (the claim doesn’t clearly define this, however it appears this may be the intention) Von Daniken shows different shapes of building blocks may be used and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed other building blocks in other shapes that are connectable with the shapes shown to create more options for building a connected toy as is known and common in the art.
Further, Suzuki teaches a similar building block set (Fig. 1-14) having a base panel with protrusions for connecting building blocks thereto (base panel 1, Fig. 1a-b), and a plurality of building blocks, the building blocks having different shapes, including building blocks which may include additional blocks formed with partial shapes of other building blocks (ex. 2b is a partial shape of 2a, Fig. 8b is a partial shape of Fig. 8a, 8d-e are partial shapes of 8C, etc.).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the building blocks in shapes of divisible portions of the hexagonal shape, such as a shape of essentially half of a hexagonal block, as Suzuki teaches that forming additional blocks as partial shapes of other blocks is known and common in the art (Col. 1 lines 61-63, Col. 7 lines 42-59, Fig. 2a-8e) and further as the shape of the building blocks is merely a matter of obvious design choice and building blocks are known to take many numerous shapes and forms in the art. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure (hexagonal building block) in various elements (two divided/distinct halves of a hexagonal building block) involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179)) and it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product (additional building blocks in partial shapes of the hexagonal base) are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Von Daniken fails to teach:
The stiffening member being ring shaped to contact insides (outer surface of the cylindrical secondary protrusions at a point closest to the center of the base plate) of the cylindrical secondary protrusions.
Further, Hasan teaches:
Similar connectable building blocks (assorted connectable building blocks having different shapes, Fig. 1-8c) having a base plate with protrusions on the top (12/13) and bottom (15) sides to frictionally couple one block to another using the protrusions, perpendicular side walls (111), wherein secondary protrusions on the bottom side of the base plate contact a stiffening ring member on an inside surface (stiffening ring 14/141, Fig. 1)
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed a stiffening member to have been a ring (circular) to contact an inside of the cylindrical secondary protrusions as Von Daniken teaches a stiffening member in various shapes and as this shape is known and common in the art as an alternative shape for providing stiffness aiding connection between building blocks as taught by Hasan (Fig. 1, page 2, lines 18-25, and description of example 1).
Further, the shape and arrangement of the stiffening portion on the bottom of the building block is merely a matter of obvious design choice and building blocks are known to have stiffening bottom portions taking many numerous shapes and forms in the art and it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product (stiffening ring member) are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In Reference to Claim 2
Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan teaches:
The building block toy set claim 1, wherein the additional building blocks are building blocks created by centrally dividing between opposite corner points of the equilateral hexagonal base plate into two partial components (the hexagonal block is formed by two halves with a symmetrical axis/line drawn between opposite corners across the base plate of Von Daniken, which above has been modified to form partial shapes of the hexagon as is known and taught by Suzuki). Further, each additional building block may be formed by theoretically symmetrically dividing the hexagonal base of each building block as desired (ex. such that one half of the block may be attached to another, etc.) as the claim does not appear to require that the additional blocks are formed by physically dividing a hexagonal building block into distinct and separate building blocks having specific shapes as discussed above.
In Reference to Claim 3
Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan teaches:
The building block toy set according to claim 1, wherein the additional building blocks are building blocks created by pie shaped symmetrical dividing of the equilateral hexagonal base plate into six partial components (the hexagonal block is formed by six even pie shaped portions with a symmetrical axis/line drawn between opposite corners across the base plate of Von Daniken, which above has been modified to form partial shapes of the hexagon as is known and taught by Suzuki). Further, each additional building block may be formed by theoretically symmetrically dividing the hexagonal base of each building block as desired (ex. such that six evenly shaped pie pieces of the block may be attached to another, etc.) as the claim does not appear to require that the additional blocks are formed by physically dividing a hexagonal building block into distinct and separate building blocks having specific shapes as discussed above.
In Reference to Claim 4
Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan teaches:
The building block toy set according to claim 1, wherein the additional building blocks include building blocks created by symmetrical dividing of the equilateral hexagonal base plate into three partial components respectively including two of the primary cylindrical protrusions and two of the secondary cylindrical protrusions (the hexagonal block is formed by three even shaped portions having 2 protrusions in each section of the base plate of Von Daniken, which above has been modified to form partial shapes of the hexagon as is known and taught by Suzuki). Further, each additional building block may be formed by theoretically dividing the hexagonal base of each building block as desired (ex. such that three evenly shaped pie pieces of the block may be attached to another, etc.) as the claim does not appear to require that the additional blocks are formed by physically dividing a hexagonal building block into distinct and separate building blocks having specific shapes as discussed above.
In Reference to Claim 5
Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan teaches:
The building block toy set according to claim 4, wherein the additional building blocks are building blocks that are formed by a unit including at least two of the partial components joined together (the additional building blocks are formed by at least two partial hexagonal parts as defined above to form a hexagonal shape building block as discussed above.
In Reference to Claim 6
Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan teaches:
The building block toy set according to claim 1, wherein the additional building blocks are building blocks that are assembled as a unit from a hexagonal building block having the equilateral hexagonal base plate and a building block created by centrally dividing the equilateral hexagonal baseplate between opposite corner points of the equilateral hexagonal base plate (the additional building blocks are formed by at least two partial hexagonal parts as defined above to form a hexagonal shape building block as discussed above).
In Reference to Claim 8
Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan teaches:
A building block toy set, comprising:
at least one base board for plugging on the building blocks according to claim 1, wherein the base board includes primary pins arranged on a base board top side in a hexagonal configuration (any of the building blocks may be considered a base board for plugging/attaching other building blocks of claim 1 thereto, wherein the hexagonal building block of Fig. 7 has hexagonally arranged primary pins P1-6 arranged on a top side, as do other blocks (ex. the larger blocks of Fig. 17-18 or the array of blocks of Fig. 19 may be considered a base board for attachment of other hexagonal blocks of claim 1), further Suzuki teaches a base board/panel 1 to allow for a large play surface for connecting building blocks thereto as is known and common in the art, Fig. 1-14).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaczperski US Pat. No. 5,057,049.
In Reference to Claim 7
Von Daniken as modified by Suzuki and Hasan teaches:
The building block toy set according to claim 1 as rejected above, wherein one of the cylindrical primary protrusions may be receive in a central portion of the block (Von Daniken: the offset connected blocks of Fig. 14 show the right side upper protrusion arranged/held at the center of the top offset connected block).
Von Daniken fails to teach:
A secondary protrusion is centrally arranged at the base plate bottom side, wherein an inner diameter of the secondary protrusion has an outer diameter of the primary protrusion so that the secondary protrusion is pluggable onto the primary protrusion.
Further, X teaches:
A similar set of connectable hexagonal shaped building blocks having baseplates, sides, and set of upper and lower connecting protrusions, the bottom of the baseplate including a centrally located protrusion that may accept a protrusion of another connectable block therein (Fig. 3-6, central bottom cylinder 50/52 accepts a protrusion 16 therein, Col. 2 lines 54-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Von Daniken to have further included a centrally positioned secondary protrusion on the bottom side of the base plate to allow connection between the central secondary protrusion and one of the primary protrusions of another block as this would allow blocks to be connected by offsetting the blocks relative one another or may provide a more secure connection if a central protrusion is used on the top side as is known and taught by Kaczperski (Col. 2 lines 54-66).
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Movsesian (2021/0129039), Vataker (5,661,941), Myller (4,964,834), Brettingen (3,487,579), and Dehm (3,233,358) teach similar building block sets.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711